Serbia

Cluster Munition Ban Policy

Last updated: 21 July 2016

Summary: Non-signatory Serbia supports the convention’s humanitarian objectives, but states that it cannot consider accession until it replaces its stocks of cluster munitions. Serbia has participated in some of the convention’s meetings, including the First Review Conference in September 2015. However, it abstained from voting on a resolution supporting the convention in December 2015.

Serbia inherited a stockpile of cluster munitions after the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), but has not disclosed information on the types or quantities stockpiled. During the conflicts that resulted from the break-up of Yugoslavia, cluster munitions were used by SFRY, ethnic militias, and secessionist forces. NATO forces used air-dropped cluster munitions in Serbia during the 1998–1999 conflict over Kosovo.

Policy

The Republic of Serbia has not yet acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, even though it played an important role in the Oslo Process that produced the convention.

Serbia has expressed support for the convention’s humanitarian objectives, but the Ministry of Defense has objected to accession, asserting in 2013 that cluster munitions are “part of the weaponry and the equipment necessary for the execution of the missions and tasks” and finding the Serbian armed forces “has no replacement for this type of munition.”[1] In April 2015, Serbia’s Minister of Defense informed the Monitor that the government will consider accession to the convention after it acquires new weapons and military equipment to replace its stockpile of cluster munitions.[2] Serbia abstained from the vote on a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution on the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 7 December 2015, which urges states outside the convention to “join as soon as possible.”[3] Serbia did not explain why it abstained from voting on the non-binding resolution that 140 states voted to adopt, including many non-signatories.

Serbia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made more positive comments on the convention, including in a 2013 letter that described Serbia’s perspective as a country whose citizens had been injured and killed by cluster munitions.[4]

Serbia played a leadership role throughout the Oslo Process that created the Convention on Cluster Munitions, most notably by hosting a conference for states affected by cluster munitions in Belgrade in October 2007.[5] It actively participated in the formal negotiations in Dublin in May 2008 and joined in the consensus adoption of the convention text at the conclusion. However, Serbia attended the convention’s Oslo Signing Conference in December 2008 as an observer. At the time, it did not provide an explanation for its lack of signature. The following year local media reported that all actions directed towards signing the convention stopped after the General Staff of the Serbian Army recommended to the National Security Council that Serbia not sign.[6]

Serbia participated as an observer in the convention’s First Review Conference in Dubrovnik, Croatia in September 2015, but did not make any statements. It attended annual Meetings of States Parties of the convention in 2011–2012 as well as intersessional meetings in Geneva in 2013–2015. Serbia also participated in a mine action symposium in Biograd, Croatia on April 2016.[7]

Civil society representatives from Serbia and particularly cluster munition survivors, such as Branislav Kapetanovic and Slađan Vučković, continue to advocate for Serbia to accede to the Convention on Cluster Munitions without delay.[8]

Serbia has voted in favor of UNGA resolutions condemning the use of cluster munitions in Syria, most recently in December 2014.[9]

Serbia is a State Party to the Mine Ban Treaty. It is also party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons.

Use

In April 2015, the Minister of Defense said that “the Army of Serbia has taken steps and implemented activities to recall from operational use a part of cluster munitions [sic] and start with its disposal” due to several reasons, including “the ban on use, the limited shelf-life of the cluster munitions available, and the limited possibilities of the military industry in regard of repairs and [performance] enhancement” of the munitions.[10]

A 2007 comment by Serbia’s then-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vuk Jeremić, indicated the government was considering enacting a unilateral moratorium on the use of cluster munitions.[11] However in 2011, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified that the proposed moratorium is no longer being considered.[12]

Cluster munitions were used by the SFRY as well as ethnic militias and secessionist forces during the conflicts resulting from the breakup of Yugoslavia starting in 1991.

During the 1998–1999 conflict in Kosovo, aircraft from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US) dropped cluster bombs in Serbia and Kosovo during the NATO air campaign.[13] During the Kosovo conflict, forces of the SFRY also launched several cluster munition rocket attacks into border regions controlled by Albania.

Production, transfer, and stockpiling

In 2009, Serbia stated that it does not have the capacity to produce cluster munitions and has not produced cluster munitions since the dissolution of the SFRY.[14] In 2011, the Ministry of Defense affirmed that Serbia “is not a producer of cluster munitions.”[15] According to standard reference works, Serbia was thought to have inherited some of those production capabilities.[16] A number of Serbian companies have advertised surface-to-surface rocket launchers, rockets, and artillery that could be used with either unitary warheads or submunitions.[17]

In 2011, the Ministry of Economy and Regional Development informed the Monitor that it has no records in its database of any foreign trade involving cluster munitions in the period from 2005 to 2010.[18]

The precise size and composition of Serbia’s stockpile of cluster munitions is not known, but it is thought to be substantial and comprised of air-delivered cluster bombs, ground-launched rockets, and artillery projectiles. Jane’s Information Group lists Serbia as possessing BL755 cluster bombs.[19]

Assuming Serbia’s stockpile contains cluster munitions that were produced by the SFRY, it may also possess 120mm M93 mortar projectiles (containing 23 KB-2 submunitions), 152mm 3-O-23 artillery projectiles (containing 63 KB-2 submunitions), and 262mm M87 Orkan surface-to-surface rockets (containing 288 KB-1 submunitions). KB submunitions are the dual-purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) type. It may also possess RAB-120 and KPT-150 cluster bombs.[20]

In 2013 and 2015, the Ministry of Defense stated that the Army of Serbia has taken steps to recall from operational use “part” of its cluster munitions stockpile and initiate its disposal.[21] No further information has been provided on the numbers and types of stocks destroyed or to indicate the status of the destruction process.



[1] According to a 2013 letter to the Monitor, the Ministry of Defense has long-term modernization plans that include the acquisition of modern weapons systems and equipment to replace cluster munitions, but procurement had “been significantly slowed down” by “the negative effects of the financial crisis.” It found that “it is not acceptable to risk a reduction of the level of operational capacity of the army, which would be an imminent consequence of the decision to accede to the convention.” The letter expressed another concern that several significant countries remain outside the convention, highlighting Argentina, Brazil, China, Finland, Greece, India, Israel, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United States, as well as Slovakia, which subsequently acceded in July 2015. Letter No. 335-7, “Response by the Ministry of Defense in connection to the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” from Miroslav Janovic, Ministry of Defense, to the CMC and Assistance Advocacy Access–Serbia (AAAS), 19 August 2013. Translation by AAAS, a member of the CMC.

[2] Letter from Bratislav Gašić, Minister of Defense, to AAAS, 15 April 2015. Translation by AAAS.

[3]Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” UNGA Resolution 70/54, 7 December 2015. It was also absent during the first round of voting on the draft resolution in UNGA First Committee on Disarmament and International Security on 4 November 2015. “Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” UNGA Resolution AC.1/70/L.49/Rev.1, 4 November 2015.

[4] The letter highlighted the convention’s importance in introducing “new international values and standards in regard of the development, production, possession, use, and stockpiling of this inhumane and dangerous weapon” but did not articulate Serbia’s views on accession. Letter from Amb. Miomir Udovicki, Assistant Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to AAAS, 15 August 2013. Translation by AAAS. However, in 2011, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs representative informed the CMC that Serbia would join the convention “sooner than expected.” CMC meeting with Branka Latinović, Head of Arms Control Directorate, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Zoran Vujić, Head of the Department of Security Policy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Convention on Cluster Munitions Third Meeting of States Parties, Oslo, 12 September 2012; and CMC meeting with Zoran Vujić, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Convention on Cluster Munitions, Second Meeting of States Parties, Beirut, 13 September 2011.

[5] For more details on Serbia’s cluster munition policy and practice through early 2009, see Human Rights Watch and Landmine Action, Banning Cluster Munitions: Government Policy and Practice (Ottawa: Mines Action Canada, May 2009), pp. 236–238.

[6] Minister of Defense Dragan Šutanovać reportedly stated that the army could not give up cluster munitions because it did not have the capacity to destroy and replace existing stockpiles. “Kasetna municija nenadoknadiva” (“Cluster munitions indispensable”), B92, 27 August 2009.

[7] The workshop was organized by the Regional Arms Control Verification and Implementation Assistance Centre (RACVIAC) Centre for Security Cooperation in Southeast Europe and the government of Croatia’s Office for Demining and Croatian Mine Action Centre (CROMAC).

[8]Веровали или не Србија једина у региону „одобрава“ касетне бомбе!” (“Believe it or not Serbia only in the region to ‘approve’ cluster bombs!),” Facebookrepoter, 29 January 2015. See also, “Ein falscher Griff und man ist tot” (“A wrong move and you’re dead”), 20 Minuten (Switzerland), 5 December 2014.

[9]Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic,” UNGA Resolution 69/189, 18 December 2014. Serbia voted in favor of similar resolutions on 15 May and 18 December 2013.

[10] Letter from Bratislav Gašić, Minister of Defense, to AAAS, 15 April 2015. Translation by AAAS.

[11] “Cluster Bomb Conference in Belgrade,” B92 (Belgrade), 3 October 2007.

[12] Email from Zoran Vujić, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 14 February 2011.

[13] Human Rights Watch (HRW), “Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign,” Vol. 12, No. 1(D), February 2000; Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), “Yellow Killers: The Impact of Cluster Munitions in Serbia and Montenegro,” 2007; and NPA, “Report on the Impact of Unexploded Cluster Munitions in Serbia,” January 2009.

[14] Letter No. 235/1 from Dr. Slobodan Vukcević, Permanent Mission of Serbia to the UN in Geneva, 9 February 2009.

[15] Letter from the Public Relations Department, Ministry of Defense, 6 July 2011.

[16] See HRW and Landmine Action, Banning Cluster Munitions: Government Policy and Practice (Ottawa: Mines Action Canada, May 2009), p. 238.

[17] On its website, Engine Development and Production Serbia (EDEPRO Serbia) advertises improvements to the range of Orkan surface-to-surface rockets. Yugoimport-SDPR also advertises artillery rockets on its website that could fire cluster munitions. An upgraded version of the OGANJ, called the LRSVM (Self-Propelled Multiple Modular Rocket Launcher, Lanser Raketa Samohodni Višecevni Modularni), capable of delivering both cluster and unitary munitions, is advertised as “current project” at the Military-Technical Institute’s website. Email from Jelena Vicentić, AAAS, 26 June 2012.

[18] According to the ministry, publicly available reports on the transfer of controlled goods for 2005–2008 provide sufficient evidence that there were no imports or exports of cluster munitions. While the reports for 2009 and 2010 had yet to be published, the ministry stated that it could confirm that there were no records in its database of licenses issued in 2009 or 2010 for the import or export of cluster munitions. Email from Jasmina Roskić, Director of Division for Agreements on Bilateral Promotion and Protection of Investments, Concessions, and Foreign Trade in Controlled Goods, Ministry of Economy and Regional Development, 16 February 2011. See also, “Annual Report on the Realization of Foreign Trade Transfers of Controlled Goods for 2005 and 2006,” Ministry of Economy and Regional Development, Belgrade, 2007; “Annual Report on the Transfers of Controlled Goods in 2007,” Ministry of Economy and Regional Development, Belgrade, 2009; and “Annual Report on the Transfers of Controlled Goods in 2008,” Ministry of Economy and Regional Development, Belgrade, 2010.

[19] Robert Hewson, ed., Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, Issue 44 (Surrey, UK: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 2004), p. 845.

[20] For information on Yugoslav production of these weapons, see Robert Hewson, ed., Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, Issue 44 (Surrey, UK: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 2004), p. 291; Terry J. Gandler and Charles Q. Cutshaw, eds., Jane’s Ammunition Handbook 2001–2002 (Surrey, UK: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 2001), p. 641; Leland S. Ness and Anthony G. Williams, eds., Jane’s Ammunition Handbook 2007–2008 (Surrey, UK: Jane’s Information Group Limited, 2007), pp. 598–599 and 720; and US Defense Intelligence Agency, “Improved Conventional Munitions and Selected Controlled-Fragmentation Munitions (Current and Projected) DST-1160S-020-90,” undated.

[21] Letter from Bratislav Gašić, Minister of Defense, to AAAS, 15 April 2015; and Letter No. 335-7, “Response by the Ministry of Defense in connection to the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” from Miroslav Janovic, Ministry of Defense, to the CMC and AAAS, 19 August 2013. Translations by AAAS.


Mine Ban Policy

Last updated: 02 November 2011

Mine Ban Policy

The Republic of Serbia assumed the treaty commitments of the former state union of Serbia and Montenegro following the Republic of Montenegro’s declaration of independence in June 2006.[1] The former Serbia and Montenegro acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty on 18 September 2003, becoming a State Party on 1 March 2004.[2] 

 A new Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia entered into force on 1 January 2006. Articles 376 and 377 make the use, production, stockpiling, trade, and transfer of antipersonnel mines a criminal offense. These two provisions also specify penal sanctions.[3]

Serbia submitted its fifth Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report in 2011, covering calendar year 2010.[4]

Serbia attended the Tenth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in Geneva in November–December 2010, as well as the intersessional Standing Committee meetings in Geneva in June 2011.

Serbia has reconfirmed the view of the former state union of Serbia and Montenegro that “mere participation” in military activities with states not party to the treaty, which engage in activities prohibited by the treaty, is not a treaty violation.[5] 

 Serbia is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and ratified Amended Protocol II on landmines on 14 February 2011.

Production, transfer, and stockpile destruction

In 2007, Serbian officials reaffirmed that the former Serbia and Montenegro did not produce any type of landmine after 1990.[6] Serbia has stated that old facilities for mine production have been successfully transformed for production of resources for civilian purposes.[7] In the past, the former Serbia and Montenegro stated several times that mine exports halted in 1990.[8]

After Montenegro’s declaration of independence, the two countries continued the stockpile destruction process initiated by the former Serbia and Montenegro in 2005 as a project of the Ministry of Defense and the NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA).[9]

On 7 May 2007, Serbia completed the destruction of 1,404,819 antipersonnel mines stockpiled by both Serbia and Montenegro. An additional 10 mines were found and destroyed shortly thereafter. Of the 1,404,829 mines destroyed, a total of 1,205,442 were held in the Republic of Serbia and 199,387 in the Republic of Montenegro.[10] Destruction was completed well in advance of the treaty deadlines of 1 March 2008 for Serbia and 1 April 2011 for Montenegro.

In 2010 and 2011, Serbia reported retaining a total of 3,159 antipersonnel mines for training and development purposes under Article 3 of the Mine Ban Treaty.[11]

Serbia initially stated in May 2007, upon completion of its stockpile destruction, that 5,565 antipersonnel mines would be retained.[12] In 2007, according to NAMSA, 1,839 of these 5,565 mines did not have fuzes.[13] In 2009, Serbia reported that it retained 3,589 mines, a decrease of 1,976 mines from the end of 2007, and stated that it had destroyed another 1,940 mines and consumed five more in training.[14] 



[1] Following a referendum on independence on 21 May 2006, the Parliament of Montenegro declared independence on 3 June, and Montenegro was accepted as a member of the UN on 28 June. Montenegro deposited its instrument of accession to the Mine Ban Treaty on 23 October 2006.

[2] Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008. See also the separate profile for Kosovo.

[3] During the State Union before Montenegro’s independence, each Republic had separate legislative authority to implement the treaty. See Landmine Monitor Report 2006, p. 633, for details on the penal code, articles 376 and 377, and the sanctions.

[4] Previous were submitted on 27 December 2006 (due 30 April 2006), then in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

[5] In a 30 June 2006 letter to the UN Secretary-General, Serbia stated that “all declarations, reservations and notifications made by Serbia and Montenegro will be maintained by the Republic of Serbia until the Secretary-General, as depositary, is duly notified otherwise.” Upon acceding to the treaty, Serbia and Montenegro made a Declaration that “it is the understanding of Serbia and Montenegro that the mere participation in the planning or conduct of operations, exercises or any other military activities by the armed forces of Serbia and Montenegro, or by any of its nationals, if carried out in conjunction with armed forces of the non-State Parties (to the Convention), which engage in activities prohibited under the Convention, does not in any way imply an assistance, encouragement or inducement as referred to in subparagraph 1 (c) of the Convention.”

[6] Interview with Col. Dr. Vlado Radic, Department for Defense Technology, Ministry of Defense, Belgrade, 21 March 2006; and interview with Mladen Mijovic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Belgrade, 16 March 2007.

[7] Statement by Col. Dr. Jugoslav Radulovic, Assistant Minister for Material Resources, Ministry of Defense, Ceremony on the Occasion of Closing the Project for Destruction of Antipersonnel Landmines in Serbia, Belgrade, 16 May 2007.

[8] Letter from Maj.-Gen. Dobrosav Radovanovic, Assistant Minister of Defense, Sector of International Military Cooperation and Defense Policy, Ministry of Defense, 29 January 2003; and see also, Landmine Monitor Report 2002, p. 789.

[9] Interview with Zoran Dimitrijevic, Local Representative, NAMSA, Belgrade, 5 March 2007; and “Last Balkan mine stockpiles destroyed under NATO-supported project,” NATO News, 16 May 2007.

[10] The mines destroyed included: 294,823 PMA-1; 169,400 PMA-2; 307,969 PMA-3; 580,411 PMR-2A; 4,787 PMR-3; 44,083 PROM-1; and 3,356 VS-50. See Landmine Monitor Report 2007, p. 608.

[11] All mines retained for training are held by the Ministry of Defense: 500 PMA-1, 610 PMA-2, 545 PMA-3, 504 PMR-2A, 500 PMR-3; and 500 PROM-1. Serbia reports that all fuses for the PMA-1 and PMA-3 mines have been removed and destroyed. Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2010), Form B; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2009), Form B.

[12] A Ministry of Defense official told the Monitor in March 2006 that the General Staff “would probably” order all retained mines to be destroyed at the end of the stockpile destruction program. In its December 2006 Article 7 report, Serbia reported that only 5,307 mines would be retained for training, all by the Ministry of Interior. In its Article 7 report submitted in 2008, Serbia reported that same number and types of mines as being transferred for training by the Ministry of Interior (presumably to the Ministry of Defense). See Landmine Monitor Report 2008, pp. 618–619.

[13] This includes all 629 PMA-1 mines and all 1,210 PMA-3 mines. Email from Zoran Dimitrijevic, NAMSA, 25 May 2007; and email from Graham Goodrum, Technical Officer, NAMSA, 25 June 2007.

[14] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2008), Form D. The difference of 31 mines (1,976 versus 1,945) is not explained, apart from a remark in the report stating “Differences of APMs due to the administrative mistake.” Five PMA-3 mines were used for testing deminers’ boots in February 2009. A total of 450 PMA-2, 490 PMA-3, 500 PMR-3, and 500 PROM-1 were transferred for destruction in April 2008 and destroyed in November 2008.


Mine Action

Last updated: 22 November 2016

Contaminated by: cluster munition remnants (light contamination), landmines (light contamination), and other unexploded ordnance. 

Article 5 deadline: 1 March 2019
(Unclear whether on track to meet deadline)

Non-signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions 

As of February 2016, 1.93km2 was suspected to contain antipersonnel mines. In 2015, 1.17km2 of mined area was released, including 0.41km2 through clearance. Fourteen antipersonnel mines were destroyed. The Republic of Serbia submitted a revised Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 implementation workplan, including updated milestones towards meeting its 2019 clearance deadline.

At the end of 2015, Serbia had 0.89km2 confirmed to contain cluster munition remnants, and a further 2.24km2 suspected to contain cluster munition remnants, over six municipalities. This is a reduction since the end of 2014. In 2015, 0.18km2 of land was released through clearance, 1.41km2 was reduced by technical survey in 2015, and a further 1km2 was canceled by non-technical survey (NTS). In total, 235 submunitions were destroyed during survey and clearance, while 0.60km2 was confirmed by technical survey. 

Recommendations for action

  • Serbia should identify funding, including from national sources, and then clear all remaining contamination as soon as possible.
  • Serbia should complete the development of national mine action standards as soon as possible.
  • Serbia should submit its annual Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 transparency report for 2015. 

Contamination (Mines)

As of February 2016, 13 suspected hazardous areas (SHAs) in Bujanovac covering more than 1.93km2 were suspected to contain antipersonnel mines. Bujanovac is the only municipality in Serbia still contaminated.[1]

Antipersonnel mine contamination by village as at February 2016[2]

Municipality

Village

SHAs

Area (m2)

Bujanovac

Ravno Bučje

3

105,418

Končulj

5

1,182,456

Dobrosin

1

247,861

Breznica

1

131,465

Djordjevac

1

64,169

Lučane

1

73,437

Turija

1

131,274

Total

 

13

 1,936,080

 

This compares to the estimated 2.85km2 of mined area across 19 SHAs at the end of 2014.[3] There appears, though, to be a discrepancy of 0.26km2 in the reported baseline of mine contamination as of February 2016, compared with 2014, after taking into account the 1.17km2 of reported release in 2015.

Mine contamination in Serbia occurred during two phases. The first is a legacy of the armed conflict associated with the break-up of the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. The second concerns the use of mines in 2000–2001 in the municipalities of Bujanovac and Preševo by a non-state armed group, the Liberation Army of Preševo, Bujanovac and Medvedja (OVPBM). The contamination remaining in Serbia is a result of this later phase.[4] Contamination also exists within Kosovo. (See separate report on the area of Kosovo.)

Bujanovac is one of Serbia’s least-developed municipalities economically.[5] The affected areas are mainly mountainous, but are close to population centers.[6]

Contamination (Cluster Munition Remnants)

At the end of 2015, Serbia had 0.89km2 confirmed to contain cluster munition remnants, and a further 2.24km2 suspected to contain cluster munition remnants.[7] Contamination has decreased since the end of 2014, when Serbia had less than 0.5km2 confirmed to contain cluster munition remnants and a further 5.3km2 suspected to contain cluster munition remnants. 

Confirmed cluster munition contamination by municipality as at the end of 2015[8]

Municipality

Number of CHAs

Size of CHAs (m2)

Bujanovac

2

210,881

Raska

1

69,912

Sjenica

8

604,989

Total

11

885,782

Note: CHAs = confirmed hazardous areas.

 

Suspected cluster munition contamination by municipality as at the end of 2015[9]

Municipality

Number of SHAs

Size of SHAs (m2)

Uzice

1

585,268

Raska

1

190,359

Sjenica

9

511,211

Tutin

1

514,682

Crveni Krst

1

119,344

Bujanovac

1

322,667

Total

14

2,243,531

 

Cluster munition contamination results from NATO air strikes in 1999. According to Serbia, NATO cluster munitions struck 16 municipalities: Brus, Bujanovac, Cacak, Gadžin Han, Knic, Kraljevo, Kuršumlija, Leposavić, Niš city-Crveni Krst, Niš city-Medijana, Preševo, Raška, Sjenica, Sopot, Stara Pazova, and Vladimirci.[10] In late 2014, a suspected area was newly identified in Tutin, a municipality not previously reported to be contaminated by cluster munition remnants.[11] 

Socio-economic impact

Mine- and cluster munition-contaminated areas are said to impede access to local roads, grazing land for cattle, tobacco growing, and mushroom picking, and to pose a risk of fire. In addition, potential construction projects for solar energy plants, tobacco processing facilities, the wood industry, and other infrastructure are affected by mined areas.[12]

Contamination (Other explosive remnants of war) 

Serbia is also contaminated by other unexploded ordnance (UXO) both on land and in its waterways.[13]

Contamination also exists within Kosovo (see separate profile on Kosovo).

Program Management

The Sector for Emergency Management, under the Ministry of Interior, acts as the mine action authority, according to the Decree on Protection against Unexploded Ordnance (“Official Gazette of RS,” No. 70/13). It is responsible for the development of national standard operating procedures, accreditation of clearance operators, and supervising the work of the Serbian Mine Action Centre (SMAC).[14] SMAC is responsible for the coordination of demining, collection and management of mine action information (including casualty data), and survey of SHAs. It also has a mandate to plan demining projects, conduct quality control (QC) and monitor operations, ensure implementation of international standards, license demining organizations, and conduct risk education.[15] A new director of SMAC was appointed by the Serbian government in autumn 2015.

Serbia plans to complete the release of land contaminated with cluster munitions within the next five years, however, the SMAC notes that this is contingent on the availability of funds.[16]

Standards

According to SMAC, survey and clearance operations in Serbia are conducted in accordance with the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS).[17] National mine action standards (NMAS) were said to be in the final phase of development as of September 2015.[18] However, in February 2016 the new director of SMAC reported that the NMAS were being developed and were expected to be finalized in 2017.[19]

Operators 

SMAC does not itself carry out clearance or employ deminers but does carry out survey of areas suspected to contain mines, cluster munition remnants, or other explosive remnants of war (ERW). Clearance is conducted by commercial companies and NGOs, which are selected through public tender executed by ITF Enhancing Human Security.[20] Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) personnel seconded to SMAC previously conducted all surveys in Serbia.[21]

NPA conducted NTS of mined areas in 2015, but not technical survey or mine clearance.[22] NPA’s NTS capacity comprised of either one NPA team leader (seconded to SMAC) or one NPA team leader and one surveyor from NPA’s Bosnia and Herzegovina mine action program, depending on SMAC’s monthly plans.[23] NPA conducted both NTS and technical survey of cluster munition remnants in 2015, but did not conduct cluster munition clearance.[24] During technical survey operations from March to September 2015, NPA employed a total of 19 demining personnel.

The Mine Detection Dog Center (MDDC) in Sarajevo deployed 26 operational staff in Serbia in 2015, comprising of two demining teams (each with eight deminers, one team leader, and one medic), four MDD teams, one operational officer, and one internal quality control officer.[25]

Land Release (Mines)

Survey and Clearance in 2015 (Mines)

Serbia reported that, in 2015, a project entitled “Integrated approach to the mine risk land release in the territory of the Municipality of Bujanovac” was undertaken, involving survey, manual clearance, and MDDs, across a total area of just over 1.17km2. Of this, 413,915m2 was manually cleared in conjunction with MDDs, destroying 14 antipersonnel mines and one item of UXO during operations. The remaining 765,085m2 was released on the basis that it did not contain mines.[26]

This represents an increase in output compared to 2014, when 0.27km2 was released by clearance and 0.5km2 canceled by NTS.[27] This was due to the deployment of more clearance personnel and mechanical assets than in previous years. This increased capacity was a result of Serbia allocating national funds for mine clearance, with matching funds from international donors.[28]

The 2015 project in Bujanovac represented the first time that an integrated land release approach using MDDs and other assets to cancel suspected areas not found to be contaminated had been applied in Serbia, and SMAC intended to monitor the results.[29]

Progress in 2016 (Mines)

Serbia announced in May 2016 that the tender process for implementation of 2016 mine clearance projects in Konculj, Ravno Vucje, Turisko Brdo, and Tustica, was due to be concluded in the near future.[30] As of September 2016, though, the status of the tender process and of any 2016 clearance operations was unknown. 

Land Release (Cluster Munition Remnants)

In 2015, 0.18km2 of land was released through clearance, 1.41km2 was reduced by technical survey, and a further 1km2 was canceled by NTS. In total, 235 submunitions were destroyed during survey and clearance. 0.60km2 was confirmed by technical survey.[31]

Survey in 2015 (Cluster Munition Remnants)

NTS resulted in the cancelation of three SHAs in 2015, totaling just over 1km2.[32] In addition, technical survey resulted in more than 1.4km2 of land being reduced, and 0.6km2 of land in three areas being confirmed as cluster munition-contaminated. During technical survey, 233 BLU-97 submunitions were destroyed.[33]

Survey of cluster munition-contaminated area in 2015[34]

Village

Municipality

SHAs canceled

Area canceled (m²)

Area confirmed

Area confirmed (m²)

Area reduced by TS (m²)

Popovac

Crventi Krst

1

126,460

0

0

0

Sjenica

Sjenica

1

869,346

1

177,120

519,874

Vojka

Stara Pazova

1

9,222

0

0

240,724

Cedovo

Sjenica

0

0

1

89,450

216,250

Vapa

Sjenica

0

0

1

338,391

430,979

Total

 

3

1,005,028

3

604,961

1,407,827

Note: TS = technical survey.

The SMAC stated that, “In order to provide the overall security of the local population, the SMAC will monitor intensively in the forthcoming period the condition of the area without confirmed risk, in order to control and confirm the results of the project, bearing in mind that such kind of a project has been implemented for the first time in the Republic of Serbia.”[35]

Clearance in 2015 (Cluster Munition Remnants)

In 2015, a total of 180,164m2 was cleared. 129,843m2 of contamination was cleared in the municipality of Sjenica by the clearance contractor Saturnia d.o.o. Belgrade, and a further 50,321m2 were cleared in the city of Nis, by the clearance contractor “Stop Mines.”[36] Two BLU-97 submunitions and 12 items of UXO were destroyed during clearance.

Progress in 2016 (Cluster Munition Remnants) 

As of July 2016, one clearance project was being implemented in an area 69,912m2 in Kopaonik Mountain, Raška Municipality.[37]

Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 Compliance

Under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty (and in accordance with the five-year extension granted by States Parties in 2013), Serbia is required to destroy all antipersonnel mines in mined areas under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but not later than 1 March 2019. It is not clear whether Serbia is on track to meet this deadline.

As late as May 2012, Serbia had hoped to meet its original Article 5 deadline,[38] but in March 2013 it applied for a five-year extension. In granting the request, the Thirteenth Meeting of States Parties noted that “implementation could proceed much faster if Serbia was able to cover part of demining costs and thereby become more attractive for external funding.” States Parties further noted that the plan presented by Serbia was “workable, but it lacks ambition, particularly given the small amount of mined area in question.”[39]

Serbia’s claim to continued jurisdiction over Kosovo entails legal responsibility for remaining mined areas in Kosovo under Article 5 of the Mine Ban Treaty. However, Serbia did not include such areas in its extension request estimate of remaining contamination or plans for the extension period.

As of September 2016, Serbia had yet to submit a Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 transparency report for 2015.

In the last five years, Serbia has cleared less than one square kilometer of mined area (see table below).

Mine clearance in 2011–2015

Year

Area cleared (km2)

2015

0.41

2014

0.27

2013

0

2012

0.16

2011

0

Total

0.84

 

Serbia is falling behind the clearance plan it set out in its 2013 Article 5 deadline extension request, which envisaged clearance of just under 0.49km2 in 2013; just over 0.57km2 in 2014; and just over 4.1km2 in 2015.[40] In its original extension request Serbia also predicted it would complete survey by the end of 2015, which it did not achieve. In 2015, Serbia reported that it had adjusted its extension request plan and predicted that of the remaining 2.85km2 of mined area, some 1.2km2 would be surveyed in 2015 and the remaining 1.65km2 in 2016. Of this, Serbia expected to clear a total of 1.6km2 by 2018: 0.4km2 in 2015, 0.6km2 in 2016, and 0.6km2 in 2017.[41]

In March 2016, Serbia submitted an updated workplan to the Mine Ban Treaty Implementation Support Unit. It now plans to address 0.8km2 in 2016; 0.6km2 in 2017; and 0.52km2 in 2018; and to carry out “additional check-up and verification” in 2019.[42] Serbia also cautioned, though, that implementation of clearance projects might be affected by funding, but that if additional funds were provided, the work could be completed more quickly.[43]

Serbia has stated that despite difficulties and austerity measures it remains strongly committed to making Serbia mine free, by 2019 at the latest.[44]

Progress in cluster munition clearance 2011–2015

Five-year summary of clearance

Year

Area cleared (km2)

2015

0.18

2014

0.29

2013

2.40

2012

1.42

2011

1.15

Total

5.44

 

 

The Monitor gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the Mine Action Review supported and published by Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), which conducted mine action research in 2016 and shared it with the Monitor. The Monitor is responsible for the findings presented online and in its print publications.



[1] Statements of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 1 December 2015; Intersessional Meetings, Committee on Article 5 Implementation, Geneva, 19 May 2016; and Preliminary observations of the Mine Ban Treaty Committee on Article 5 Implementation, Intersessional Meetings, Geneva, 19–20 May 2016.

[2] “Republic of Serbia Updated Detailed Work Plan for the Remaining Period Covered by the Extension,” submitted to the Mine Ban Treaty Implementation Support Unit (ISU), 3 March 2016.

[3] Emails from Miroslav Pisarevic, Project Manager, Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), 5 May 2015; and from Branislav Jovanovic, Director, SMAC, 7 September 2015.

[4] Article 5 deadline Extension Request, March 2013, p. 5; and Article 7 Report (for 2014), Form C.

[5] “Republic of Serbia Updated Detailed Work Plan for the Remaining Period Covered by the Extension,” submitted to the ISU, 3 March 2016, and provided to Mine Action Review by the ISU upon request.

[6] Article 5 deadline Extension Request, March 2013, p. 23.

[7] Email from Jovica Simonović, Acting Director of SMAC, 26 July 2016.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Intersessional Meetings, Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Geneva, 21 June 2011; and interview with Petar Mihajlović, Director, and Slađana Košutić, International Cooperation Advisor, SMAC, Belgrade, 25 March 2011.

[11] Email from Branislav Jovanovic, SMAC, 4 May 2015.

[12] Ibid., 23 March 2015; and from Miroslav Pisarevic, NPA, 5 May 2015; and “Republic of Serbia Updated Detailed Work Plan for the Remaining Period Covered by the Extension,” submitted to the ISU, 3 March 2016, and provided to Mine Action Review by the ISU upon request.

[13] SMAC, “Mine situation,” undated.

[14] Emails from Darvin Lisica, NPA Regional Programme Manager, 6 May 2016, and 12 June 2016.

[15] “Law of Alterations and Supplementations of the Law of Ministries,” Official Gazette, 84/04, August 2004; interview with Petar Mihajlović, and Slađana Košutić, SMAC, Belgrade, 26 April 2010; and SMAC, “About us,” undated.

[16] Email from Jovica Simonović, SMAC, 26 July 2016.

[17] SMAC, “About us,” SMAC, undated.

[18] Interview with Branislav Jovanovic, SMAC, in Dubrovnik, 10 September 2015.

[19] Interview with Jovica Simonović, SMAC, in Geneva, 18 February 2016.

[20] Interview with Petar Mihajlović and Slađana Košutić, SMAC, Belgrade, 26 April 2010.

[21] Emails from Vanja Sikirica, Programme Manager, NPA, Belgrade, 13 March 2014, and 29 April 2014.

[22] Email from Darvin Lisica, NPA, 20 October 2016.

[23] Ibid., 13 April 2016, and 6 May 2016.

[24] Ibid., 13 April 2016.

[25] Email from Nermin Hadžimujagić, Director, MDDC, 12 October 2016.

[26] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 1 December 2015.

[27] Email from Branislav Jovanovic, SMAC, 23 March 2015.

[28] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for 2014), Form F.

[29] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Intersessional Meetings, Committee on Article 5 Implementation, Geneva, 19 May 2016.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Emails from Jovica Simonović, SMAC, 26 July 2016; and from Darvin Lisica, NPA, 13 April 2016.

[32] Email from Darvin Lisica, NPA, 13 April 2016; and responses to questionnaire by Miroslav Pisarevic, Project Manager, Humanitarian Disarmament Programme, NPA, Serbia, 19 March 2015, and 30 June 2015.

[33] Emails from Jovica Simonović, SMAC, 26 July 2016; and from Darvin Lisica, NPA, 13 April 2016, and 12 June 2016.

[34] Emails from Jovica Simonović, SMAC, 26 July 2016; and from Darvin Lisica, NPA, 13 April 2016.

[35] Email from Jovica Simonović, SMAC, 26 July 2016.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Intersessional Meetings, Standing Committee on Mine Action, Geneva, 23 May 2012.

[39] Analysis of Serbia’s Article 5 deadline Extension Request, submitted by the President of the Twelfth Meeting of States Parties on behalf of the States Parties mandated to analyze requests for extensions, 2 December 2013.

[40] Article 5 deadline Extension Request, March 2013, p. 26.

[41] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for 2014), Form F.

[42] Preliminary observations of the Mine Ban Treaty Committee on Article 5 Implementation, Intersessional Meetings, Geneva, 19–20 May 2016; and “Republic of Serbia Updated Detailed Work Plan for the Remaining Period Covered by the Extension,” submitted to the ISU, 3 March 2016, and provided to Mine Action Review by the ISU upon request.

[43] Preliminary observations of the Mine Ban Treaty Committee on Article 5 Implementation, Intersessional Meetings, Geneva, 19–20 May 2016.

[44] Statements of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 1 December 2015; and Mine Ban Treaty Intersessional Meetings, Committee on Article 5 Implementation, Geneva, 19 May 2016.


Support for Mine Action

Last updated: 06 October 2016

In 2015, three donors contributed US$1.6 million to mine action in the Republic of Serbia, an increase of some $600,000 from 2014.[1]

In 2012, Serbia reported, for the first and last time, that it supported its mine action program in 2012 through a contribution of €150,000 ($192,885).[2]

International contributions: 2015[3]

Donor

Sector

Amount (national currency)

Amount ($)

US

Clearance and risk education

$1,500,000

1,500,000

Slovenia

Clearance

101,550

112,680

Czech Republic

Capacity-building

€20,000

22,192

Total

 

 

1,634,872

 

Since 2011, international contributions to mine action activities in Serbia totaled $9.6 million and averaged $1.9 million per year.

Summary of contributions: 2011–2015[4]

Year

Amount ($)

2015

1,634,872

2014

1,010,015

2013

1,200,000

2012

2,580,127

2011

3,222,568

Total

9,647,582

 


[1] Czech Republic, Convention on Conventional Weapons Amended Protocol II Annual Report, Form E and Annex 1, 31 March 2016; email from Katherine Baker, Foreign Affairs Officer, Weapons Removal and Abatement, United States Department of State, 12 September 2016; and ITF Enhancing Human Security, “Annual Report 2015,” April 2016, p. 22.

[2] Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 Extension Request, 26 March 2013, p. 24. Exchange rates for 2011: €1.3931=US$1. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 3 January 2012.

[3] Exchange rates for 2015: €1=US$1.1096. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 4 January 2016.

[4] See previous Monitor reports.


Casualties and Victim Assistance

Last updated: 04 January 2017

Action points based on findings

  • Support the efforts of the Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veteran’s and Social Affairs (MLEVSA) to lead the working group on victim assistance empowered to develop and implement a plan to improve access to assistance for mine/explosive remnants of war (ERW) survivors.
  • Pass and begin to implement adequate legislation on the protection of civilian war victims and veterans with disabilities.
  • Simplify the bureaucratic procedures that prevent mine/ERW survivors from accessing benefits to which they are entitled.

Victim assistance commitments

The Republic of Serbia is responsible for significant numbers of landmine survivors, cluster munition victims, and survivors of other ERW who are in need. Serbia has made commitments to provide victim assistance through the Mine Ban Treaty.

Casualties Overview

All known casualties by end 2015

Unknown, but significantly more than 1,000

Casualties in 2015

6 (2014: 11)

2015 casualties by outcome

4 killed; 2 injured (2014: 11 injured)

2015 casualties by item type

6 ERW


In 2015, six ERW casualties were reported by the Ministry of Interior.[1] This represented a decrease from the 11 casualties reported in 2014, injured by ERW or victim-activated improvised explosive devices (IEDs).[2]

The last confirmed landmine casualties in Serbia were reported in 2005. Annual mine/ERW casualty figures have declined in recent years, following a peak in 1999 and 2000.[3]

The total number of mine/ERW casualties in Serbia is not known. In 2004, 1,360 casualties (24 killed; 1,336 injured) were reported between 1992 and 2000 by Serbia and Montenegro.[4]

Cluster munition casualties

On 23 August 2016, a deminer was injured in a clearance accident with an unexploded submunition on Mount Kapoanik, close to a popular ski resort. The most recent previous casualties due to unexploded submunitions occurred near the same spot in 2012, when two clearance accidents killed three deminers.[5]

At least 78 casualties occurred during NATO cluster munitions attacks on Serbia. A further 19 casualties were caused by unexploded submunitions between 1999 and 2013. Cluster munitions are estimated to have caused more than 100 unreported casualties in Serbia during strikes on Nis. In addition, unexploded submunitions are known to have caused casualties in several regions that were not reported to the authorities.[6] A survey by Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA) identified 191 cluster munitions casualties (31 killed; 160 injured) for the period between 1999 and 2008, but details were not provided and the report did not differentiate between casualties during strikes and those caused by unexploded submunitions.[7]

Victim Assistance

The total number of survivors in Serbia is not known, but it has been estimated to be between 1,300 and 8,000.[8] As of June 2014, Serbia reported a total of 1,316 civilian (921 men and 395 women) war victims with disabilities; it was not known how many were victims of landmines and ERW versus other conflict-related causes.[9] In 2013, Serbia had reported a total of 2,198 civilian war victims with disabilities registered with the government.[10]

Victim assistance during the Cartagena Action Plan 2010–2014

Numerous local survivor associations exist to provide peer support and advocate for members’ rights, though they have limited financial resources or none at all. For several years, the local association of survivors, Goodwill (Dobra Volja), provided psychosocial support and other services until its closure in 2009 due to a lack of both funds and state support. Since 2010, Assistance Advocacy Access Serbia (AAAS) worked with local survivor associations to strengthen their capacity to carry out national advocacy and work for improved victim assistance.

AAAS, the national survivors’ association founded in 2010, completed a national survivor needs assessment in 2012. In late 2011, Serbia announced plans to begin developing a national victim assistance plan, though work on this was stalled throughout much of 2012; efforts to coordinate resumed at the end of 2013. Also in 2013, the National Association of Veterans with Disabilities of War and Peace (URMVI) convened a cross-sectoral national meeting to discuss challenges in the area of prosthetics and orthopedics that developed a set of recommendations.[11] In 2012, Serbia changed its government focal point for victim assistance from the Special Hospital of Rehabilitation (SHROP) to the Sector for Protection of Veterans with Disabilities within the MLEVSA. This marked an important shift, from a medical focus for victim assistance to a social approach. However, attention on national elections in 2013 stalled progress in improving coordination for much of that year. In December 2013, the MLEVSA began establishing a working group on victim assistance.

Victim assistance in 2015

A working group on victim assistance officially launched in February 2015. Few changes were identified in the availability of or access to services and programs by mine/ERW survivors in 2015.

Assessing victim assistance needs

The new Working Group on Victim Assistance headed by the MLEVSA is working to consolidate information into a single database of mine/ERW survivors.[12] Data is disaggregated by sex and civilian versus military veteran status, but work had not yet been completed to disaggregate by the cause of the disability.[13] The MLEVSA also plan to establish a regularly updated database of persons with disabilities to improve regulations on assistive devices. However, the database would be limited to information on members of disabled persons’ organizations (DPOs).[14]

Victim assistance coordination

Government coordinating body/focal point

MLEVSA, Sector for Protection of Veterans with Disabilities

Coordinating mechanism

Working Group on Victim Assistance

Plan

None


The first meeting of the working group on victim assistance was held on 29 May 2015. The working group also met during the summer of 2015 and at the end of October 2015.[15] The MLEVSA had begun the process of establishing the working group in December 2013. The group includes representatives of the MLEVSA (Department for Protection of Veterans and the Disabled; Department for Protection of Persons with Disabilities; Employment Sector; Department for Gender Equality); the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Military Cooperation Section; International Humanitarian Law Commission); the Ministry of Health (Public Health Institute); Ministry of Defense (Military Medical Academy); Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development (Inclusive Education); and the Mine Action Center of the Republic of Serbia.[16] The working group’s objectives include monitoring progress in providing assistance to victims within broader national plans and legal frameworks.to support the action in the areas of health, rehabilitation, social services, education, employment, and gender equality.[17]

In 2015, the working group’s tasks included enhancing legislative protections and welfare status of mine victims, mapping existing services, and monitoring progress and alignment of national legislation regarding the rights and needs of mine victims with national and international law. To assist in service provision, the working group decided to create a central database for data on mine victims and other civilians injured during armed conflict.[18] The development of a national victim assistance plan is another objective of the working group. No progress on the creation of a specific victim-assistance plan had been reported by mid-2016.[19]

During 2015, the MLEVSA, as the victim assistance focal point, consulted with associations of mine survivors to share information about working group discussions.[20]

The working group requested that the body responsible for drafting Serbia’s National Action Plan on UN Security Council Resolution 1325 include support to women mine victims in the section of the national action plan for 2016–2020, entitled “Provision of Support to Victims of Armed Conflict.”[21]

Serbia reported on progress and challenges in responding to the needs of mine/ERW victims at the Mine Ban Treaty intersessional meetings in June 2015 and at the Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties in December 2015. Serbia also requested opportunities for exchanges of experiences and best practices in this area with other states.[22] Serbia did not include an update on victim assistance in its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report for calendar year 2014; the most recent Article 7 report to report on victim assistance was 2012.[23] As of 1 December 2016, Serbia had not yet submitted its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report for calendar year 2015.

Survivor inclusion and participation

Survivors participated in drafting the Law on the Protection of Veterans with Disabilities and provided input on the draft law in 2014.[24] Public hearings and discussions were organized in regional centers of Belgrade, Krgujevac, Nis, and Novi Sad, with the involvement of all relevant associations, veterans’ organizations, organizations of civilian war victims, NGOs, and individuals.[25] The law was submitted to parliament, but the process of adoption was delayed when an election was called in December 2015.[26]

In 2015, survivors and survivor groups did not participate in meetings of the working group on victim assistance.[27] However, previously survivor organizations were represented in consultations with MLEVSA on the establishment of the victim assistance working group.[28]

Survivor groups worked with local authorities to promote local accessibility and other action plans, including enabling local disabled sports associations.[29]

Service accessibility and effectiveness

Victim assistance activities[30]

Name of organization

Type of organization

Type of activity

Changes in quality/coverage of service in 2015

SHROP

Government

Physical rehabilitation and psychological support

Ongoing

Military Medical Academy (VMA)

Government

Medical services, physical rehabilitation, and psychological and psychiatric support

Taking up an active role in the Working Group on Victim Assistance

Sector for Protection of Veterans with Disability, Ministry of Labor and Social Policy

Government

Support for physical and professional rehabilitation of disabled veterans

Coordinating the Working Group on Victim Assistance; initiating activities in data collection and needs assessment

Association of Disabled Veterans of War and Peace

National association

Advocacy, psychological support, rehabilitation, legal aid, awareness-raising, coordination between associations, trainings

Coverage reduced due to reduced funding; creative space opened in headquarters

Civilian War Victims Association, Smederevo

Local NGO

Data collection, advocacy of rights and legal assistance, peer support, and social inclusion

Ongoing, but reduced beneficiaries due to lack of funding

Association of Veterans with Disabilities, Vlasotince

Local NGO

Psychological support and social inclusion; accessibility projects; advocacy

Coverage reduced due to reduced funding

Association of Veterans with Disabilities, Gadzin Han

Local NGO

Home visits/peer support for veterans with disabilities and other persons with disabilities

Association of Veterans with Disabilities, Kragujavec

Local NGO

Sporting events, awareness-raising activities, training in rights and administrative procedures to obtain rights

Graditeljimira (Peace Builders)

National NGO

Psychological support and social inclusion; physical rehabilitation; advocacy; peace and reconciliation

Amputee Association of Serbia

National NGO

Referrals to available services; advocacy, cross-border cooperation

AAAS

National NGO

Survivor needs assessment, advocacy, capacity-building of local survivors’ groups and organizations, awareness-raising

 

Medical care

All civilian victims of armed conflict in Serbia, including mine/ERW survivors, are entitled to healthcare and financial benefits related to the provision of healthcare.[31] No changes were identified in the quality or availability of medical care in 2015. Survivor associations continued to report that available care was insufficient to meet the needs of survivors, citing bureaucracy as a major obstacle to accessing care, especially specialized services.[32] Only basic services were available through local health centers.[33]

Physical rehabilitation

In 2015, the government-run SHROP was open to provide services to all eligible persons, including civilian mine survivors. Previously access to SHROP by non-military beneficiaries had been limited.[34]

Prosthetics and aids were no longer produced nationally and had to be imported. Items considered non-life saving, such as orthopedic eyes, shoes, or crutches, had to be purchased through private companies, which then imports the items needed. These items had to be paid for by the survivors, who used their disability pensions to cover the costs.[35] Physical rehabilitation was designated to a specific number of days corresponding to assessed status; for example, a person assessed at 70% registered disability status would be eligible for 21 days of rehabilitation.[36]

Survivor associations were concerned that the burden of processes required for proving eligibility to receive services guaranteed by law. Upon making an application or a claim for a service such as new tires for a wheelchair, the survivor has to wait to be invited to meet with the medical commission to receive approval for the service or item.[37]

Psychological support and social inclusion

Survivor associations found professional psychological support through the public health sector to be completely insufficient, reporting several cases of untreated psychological illness that ended in suicide.[38] Several local survivor associations continued to provide psychological and peer support to mine victims and family members through home visits and group therapy.[39]

A creative space for survivors and other artists was founded by the Association of Disabled Veterans of War and Peace in 2015, but struggled to maintain funding.[40] Inclusive sports continued in 2015.

Serbia lacks clear regulating procedures to ensure that persons with disabilities were able to access inclusive education, and barriers to such access included a lack of teacher training, a lack of appropriate education materials, uncooperative school administrators, and discrimination from other parents.[41]

In 2015, the Office of the Commissioner for Protection of Equality continued to raise awareness and promote mechanisms for protection against discrimination against person with disabilities and other marginalized communities. The European Commission (EC) reported that the social inclusion of persons with disabilities required significant improvement. The EC also noted a need for community based services for persons with disabilities.[42]

Economic inclusion

All registered civilian war victims, including mine/ERW survivors are entitled to a monthly pension based on the medically assessed degree of their disability as well as subsidized transportation,[43] however, bureaucratic procedures prevented some survivors from accessing these benefits.[44]

Unemployment and discrimination in hiring remained a serious problem for persons with disabilities.[45] In early 2014, the national ombudsman found that the Minister for Labor, Employment, Veterans, and Social Affairs (MLEVSA) had failed to implement official policies to stimulate professional rehabilitation and employment of persons with disabilities.[46] In 2015, it was reported that persons with disabilities continued to suffer from discrimination and high levels of unemployment.[47] The EC reported that ensuring reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities remained a challenge in 2015.[48]

Laws and policies

Serbia has a Strategy for the Prevention and Protection from Discrimination (2013–2018) and an action plan including the protection of persons with disabilities (2014).[49]

Some progress in the implementation of accessibility regulations was reported. Public entities, private companies, and local administrations were reported to have shown more interest in applying the national accessibility standards.[50]

Article 12 of the Law on Public Information and Media guarantees access to information and communications, however access to information was difficult for survivors with visual impairments and other sensory impairments. A law on sign language was adopted in March 2015; however, interpretation services were not sufficient to meet the need.[51]

Serbia’s Strategy for Promoting the Equal Status of Persons with Disabilities (2007–2015) recognized the equal rights of all persons with disabilities, including all victims of armed conflict.[52] A new updated strategy was being prepared with public consultations scheduled for late 2016.[53] Throughout 2015, civilian war victims and other persons with disabilities continued to have less access to assistance as compared with military victims.

Survivors in Serbia are subject to different policies based on the policies at the time of their incident. As former policies are reviewed some survivors’ disability status may be changed. Survivor groups face difficulties in accessing information in order to make claims and to respond to status reviews. In addition, some conflicts are not recognized and therefore military victims from those conflicts are unable to obtain necessary records to receive pensions and other services.[54]

The contribution of family caregivers was not recognized by law and benefits were not transferred to the caregiver in case of the death of a survivor. Therefore, indirect victims, family members who spent years caring for war-injured persons, did not receive any pensions or benefits if their family member passed away. Widows are entitled to financial assistance with burial, but many do not know their rights.[55]

Persons with disabilities continued to face stigmatization and segregation in 2015.[56] Persons with disabilities continue to suffer from discrimination and high levels of unemployment, with the Deputy Ombudsman for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reporting in December 2015 that the situation remains very difficult.[57]



[1] “Discovered ERW/UXO and consequences of their detonation in 2015,” sent by the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia, Secretariat, Department for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection; prepared by Department for Analytics, Sector for Analytics, Telecommunications and Information technologies.

[2] “Overview of the unexploded ordinance (UXO) and ERW found in the period January–December 2014 and January–March 2015,” sent by the Ministry of Interior, Cabinet of the Minister, Bureau for Information of Public Importance, No. 6393/15-2; and Monitor media review 1 January to 31 December 2014.

[3] Email from Srecko Gavrilovic, Ministry of Defense, 13 July 2009; and Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), “Report on the impact of unexploded cluster submunitions in Serbia,” NPA - Belgrade, January 2009, pp. 40–41.

[4] This figure includes 260 mine survivors registered in Montenegro. Presentation of Serbia and Montenegro, Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration, Geneva, 10 February 2004; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report, Form J, 25 October 2004.

[5] Letter from Jasmina Vasiljevic, Ministry of Interior, Belgrade, 1 March 2013.The submunition was identified as a remnant from NATO bombing in 1999. “Army chief says cluster bomb deaths ‘his responsibility,’B92 (Kopaonik), 1 August 2012; “Eksplozijana Kopaoniku, Diković: Ja sam odgovoran” (“The explosion in Kopaonik, Diković: I am responsible”), Novosti (Belgrade), 1 August 2012; “News” (“Vesti”) television program, Radio Television of Serbia (RTS), 1 August 2012; “Bomba ubila deminera i upalilavrh Kopaonika!” (“Bomb kills a deminer and puts the Kopaonik peak on fire!”), Novosti (Belgrade), 13 September 2012; and “Pirotehničar stradao od kasetne bombe” (“Deminer killed by a cluster bomb”), RTS, 13 September 2012.

[6] NPA, “Yellow Killers, the Impact of Cluster Munitions in Serbia and Montenegro,” NPA - Belgrade, January 2007, pp. 39 and 56.

[7] NPA, “Report on the impact of unexploded cluster submunitions in Serbia,” NPA - Belgrade, January 2009, p. 10.

[8] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Eleventh Meeting of States Parties, Phnom Penh, 29 November 2011; presentation of Serbia and Montenegro, Standing Committee on Victim Assistance and Socio-Economic Reintegration, Mine Ban Treaty, Geneva, 10 February 2004; and “Zaboravljenezrtve mina” (“Mine Victims Forgotten”), Politika (daily newspaper), 3 September 2009.

[9] This figure does not include military victims or family members of victims who were killed. Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014.

[10] No information was provided to explain the significant decrease in the total over a one-year period. Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 26 March 2013, p. 10; and statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Twelfth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 4 December 2012.

[11] URMVI, Conference on “Savetovanje o aktuelnimpitanjima i problemimavojnihinvalida u oblastiortopedije i protetike” (“Current issues and difficulties of the veterans with disabilities in the area of prosthetics and orthopedics”), Belgrade, 10 May 2013; and statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014.

[12] Interview with Tanja Pusonja, Advisor, Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs, Belgrade, Serbia, 17 May 2016.

[13] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014.

[14]Database on Persons with Disabilities to Come Soon” (translation), MLEVSA, 26 June 2014.

[15] Interview with Tanja Pusonja, Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs, Belgrade, Serbia, 17 May 2016.

[16] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014; Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 18/2015, 15 February 2015; interviews with Tanja Pusonja, Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs, in Geneva, Switzerland, 24 June 2015; and in Belgrade, Serbia, 17 May 2016; and statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Committee on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 25 June 2015.

[17] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Committee on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 25 June 2015.

[18] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 1 December 2015.

[19] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014; statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty, Committee on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 25 June 2015; and interviews with Tanja Pusonja, MLEVSA, 24 June 2015, and 17 May 2016.

[20] Interviews with Tanja Pusonja, MLEVSA, 24 June 2015, and 17 May 2016.

[21] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 1 December 2015.

[22] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014.

[23] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2014).

[24] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Svetlana Bogdanovic, AAAS, 15 February 2013; and by Jelena Vicentic, AAAS, 25 August 2014.

[25]Priznata prava civilnih zrtava rata” (“Rights of civilian war victims recognized”), Danas Daily, 15 January 2015.

[26] Interview with Tanja Pusonja, Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs, Belgrade, Serbia, 17 May 2016.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Jelena Vicentic, AAAS, 25 August 2014; and statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014.

[29] Interviews with Jovica Pavlovic, URVI i PPB Kragujevac, Stevan Markov, Association of Amputees of Serbia, Veroljub Smiljkovic, Graditeljimira, and DusanVukojevic, URMVIS, 9 June 2015.

[30] There are numerous service providers and DPOs delivering assistance to and/or representing persons with disabilities in Serbia. The organizations listed here have some specific focus on mine/improvised explosive devices/ERW survivors and/or responded to Monitor requests for information. Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014; and responses to Monitor questionnaire by Jelena Vicentic, AAAS, 25 August 2014; by Gladović Radivoj, URMVI Loznica, 18 March 2014; by Veroljub Smiljkovic, URMVI Krusevac, 18 March 2014; by Novica Kostić, URMVI Vlasotince, 17 March 2014; by Milena Živković and Vlado Vučković, URMVI Gadžin Han, 29 March 2014; and by Jovica Pavlovic, Secretary, URMVI Kragujevac, 19 March 2014; and interview with Dusan Vukojevic, Deputy President, Association of Veterans with Disabilities of War and Peace, Belgrade, Serbia, 16 May 2016.

[31] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014.

[32] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Jelena Vicentic, AAAS, 25 August 2014; by Gladović Radivoj, URMVI Loznica, 18 March 2014; and by Milena Živković and Vlado Vučković, URMVI Gadžin Han, 29 March 2014.

[33] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Milena Živković and Vlado Vučković, URMVI Gadžin Han, 29 March 2014.

[34] Interview with Tanja Pusonja, Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs, Belgrade, Serbia, 17 May 2016.

[35] Interview with Dusan Vukojevic, Association of Veterans with Disabilities of War and Peace, Belgrade, Serbia, 16 May 2016.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Gladović Radivoj, URMVI Loznica, 18 March 2014; and by Milena Živković and Vlado Vučković, URMVI Gadžin Han, 29 March 2014.

[39] These services were provided to members by all associations responding to the Monitor questionnaire, please see footnote 47.

[40] Interview with Dusan Vukojevic, Association of Veterans with Disabilities of War and Peace, Belgrade, Serbia, 16 May 2016.

[41] “Annual report of the Commissioner for protection of equality for 2013” (“Redovan godišnji izveštaj Poverenika za zaštitu  ravnopravnosti za 2013. godinu”), Belgrade, March 2014; and“Alternative Report on the Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the Republic of Serbia,” Belgrade, July 2015.

[42] EC, “Serbia Progress Report 2014,” November 2015.

[43] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014.

[44] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Gladović Radivoj, URMVI Loznica, 18 March 2014.

[45] United States (US) Department of State, “2015 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Serbia,” 13 April 2015.

[46] Recommendation by V. Jović, Deputy Protector of the Citizens in charge of the Department of Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Elderly, No. 3943, 14 February 2014.

[48] EC, “Serbia Progress Report 2014,” November 2015.

[49] Report by Nils Muiznieks, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 8 July 2015, p. 15.

[50] “Nastavlja se akcija “Beograd bez barijera” (“Action continues: Belgrade without barriers”), City Housing–Belgrade, 2 June 2015.

[52] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014.

[53] Email from Tanja Pusonja, Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs, 9 September 2016.

[54] Interview with Dusan Vukojevic, Association of Veterans with Disabilities of War and Peace, Belgrade, Serbia, 16 May 2016.

[55] Ibid.

[56] US Department of State, “2015 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Serbia,” 13 April 2016.

[57] Ibid.