Serbia

Cluster Munition Ban Policy

Last updated: 03 July 2018

Summary: Non-signatory Serbia acknowledges the humanitarian concerns raised by cluster munitions, but has not taken any steps to accede to the convention. It has participated in several meetings of the convention, most recently in September 2017. Serbia voted in favor of a key United Nations (UN) resolution promoting universalization of the convention in December 2017.

Serbia possesses cluster munitions inherited from the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), but has not provided information on the types or quantities stockpiled. Cluster munitions were used by SFRY, ethnic militias, and secessionist forces during the conflicts that resulted from the break-up of Yugoslavia. 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 despite playing an important role in the diplomatic process that created it.

Serbia acknowledges the humanitarian concerns raised by cluster munitions, but has not taken any steps to accede to the convention.[1] Officials from Serbia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs have generally expressed interest and support for the convention’s humanitarian objectives, while the Ministry of Defense has generally objected to accession.[2] For example, in 2015, Serbia’s Minister of Defense said the government will consider acceding to the convention after it acquires new weapons and military equipment to replace its stockpiled cluster munitions.[3]

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.[4] 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 only 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.[5]

Serbiahas participated in most of the convention’s meetings, most recently the Seventh Meeting of States Parties in Geneva in September 2017.[6]

Serbia voted in favor of a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution in December 2017, which urges states outside the Convention on Cluster Munitions to “join as soon as possible.”[7]

Serbia has voted in favor of UNGA resolutions condemning the use of cluster munitions in Syria.[8]

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.[9]

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

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.[10] In 2011, the Ministry of Defense affirmed that Serbia “is not a producer of cluster munitions.”[11] According to standard reference works, Serbia was thought to have inherited some of those production capabilities.[12] 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.[13]

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.[14]

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.[15]

In 2011, Serbia’s Ministry of Economy and Regional Development told the Monitor that it has no records in its database detailing any foreign trade of cluster munitions in the period from 2005 to 2010.[16]

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.[17] No further information has been provided on the quantities and types of stocks or the status of the destruction process.

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.[18]

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.[19] During the Kosovo conflict, forces of the SFRY also launched several cluster munition rocket attacks into border regions controlled by Albania.



[1] In 2016, a representative said the government is interested in the convention, but is concerned about the costs of joining it. ICBL-CMC meeting with Tijana Bokic, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Serbia to the UN in New York, New York, October 2016.

[2] For example, in a 2013 letter, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs described Serbia’s perspective as a countrywhose citizens had been injured and killed by cluster munitions. 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 Assistance Advocacy Access–Serbia (AAAS), 15 August 2013. Translation by AAAS, a member of the CMC. In2011, 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.

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

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

[5] 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.

[6] Serbia participated in the convention’sMeetings of States Parties in 2011, 2012, 2016, and 2017 as well as the First Review Conference in 2015 and intersessional meetings in 2013–2015.

[7] “Implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” UNGA Resolution 72/54, 4 December 2017. Serbia voted in favor of a previous UNGA resolution promoting the convention in 2016 and abstained from voting for the first UNGA resolution on the convention in 2015.

[8] “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. Serbia was absent from votes on similar resolutions in 2015–2017.

[9] “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; and “Naši građani i dalje stradaju od kasetnih bombi, a Srbija još nije potpisala važnu konvenciju” (“Our citizens continue to suffer from cluster bombs, but Serbia has not yet signed an important convention”), Blic, 5 May 2017. See also, “Ein falscher Griff und man ist tot”(“A wrong move and you’re dead”), 20 Minuten (Switzerland), 5 December 2014.

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

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

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

[13] On its website, Engine Development and Production Serbia (EDEPRO Serbia) advertised improvements to the range of Orkan surface-to-surface rockets. Yugoimport-SDPR also advertised 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, was advertised on the Military-Technical Institute’s website. Email from Jelena Vicentić, AAAS, 26 June 2012.

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

[15] 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.

[16] 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.

[17] 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.

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

[19] 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.


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: 03 November 2018

 

Treaty status

Mine Ban Treaty

State Party
Article 5 deadline: 1 March 2019
Extension request submitted

Convention on Cluster Munitions

Non-signatory

Mine action management

National mine action management actors

Sector for Emergency Management, under the Ministry of Interior, acts at the national mine action authority
Serbian Mine Action Center (SMAC)

Mine action strategic plan

Workplan to completion provided in the extension request submitted in 2018

Mine action legislation

Government Decree on Protection against Unexploded Ordnance, 1 January 2014

Mine action standards

International Mine Action Standards (IMAS) are used

Operators in 2017

Survey is conducted by SMAC
Saturnia D.O.O. Belgrade
An EOD department within the Sector for Emergency Management responds to call-outs for individual items of ERW discovered, and is responsible for the demolition of items found by SMAC

Extent of contamination as of end 2017

Landmines

2.35km2 SHA
Scale of contamination: light

Cluster munition remnants

0.64km2 CHA and 1.9kmSHA
Scale of contamination: light

Other ERW contamination

Scale unknown; includes aircraft bombs, both on land and in its internal waterways

Land release in 2017

Landmines

0.28kmreleased through technical survey, resulting in 3 antipersonnel mines destroyed

Cluster munition remnants

0.18km2 cleared, resulting in 76 submunitions destroyed

Other ERW

No available data on spot tasks
2 items destroyed during mine and cluster munition clearance

Progress

Landmines

Serbia’s second extension request, submitted in March 2018, seeks a further four years to complete its remaining challenge

Cluster munition remnant

Any funding secured will be used to prioritize survey and clearance of antipersonnel mines. However, if adequate funding is secured, cluster munition clearance could be finished in three years

Note: ERW = explosive remnants of war; SHA = suspected hazardous area; CHA = confirmed hazardous area; EOD = explosive ordnance disposal.

Contamination

In the Republic of Serbia, as of March 2018, 12 areas in Bujanovac municipality, covering more than 2.35km2, were suspected to contain antipersonnel mines (see table below).[1] This is a slight decrease from the 2.63kmof mined area as of April 2017.[2]

Bujanovac is the only municipality in Serbia still affected by mines. According to SMAC, the contamination is from mines of an unknown origin and type, which have not been emplaced to follow a pattern, and for which there are no minefield records.[3]

Antipersonnel mine contamination by village (as of April 2018)[4]

Municipality

Village

SHAs

Area (m2)

Bujanovac

Ravno Bučje

3

575,020

Končulj

5

1,181,820

Dobrosin

1

248,000

Djordjevac

1

145,100

Lučane

1

73,200

Turija

1

131,400

Total

 

12

2,354,540

 

Historically, mine contamination in Serbia can be divided into two phases. The first was a legacy of the armed conflicts associated with the break-up of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. The second concerned 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.[5] Contamination also exists within Kosovo (see separate profile).

The remaining mine contamination are said to have a “severe” socio-economic impact on Bujanovac, which is Serbia’s most underdeveloped municipality.The affected areas are mainly mountainous, but are close to population centers.Mined areas are said to impede safe access to forest products, cattle, and mushroom picking, which represent primary sources of income. In addition, mined areas block access to local roads, affect the environment, increase the risk of fire, and prevent the construction of solar plants and tobacco-processing facilities. Mined areas also negatively impact regional development by impeding the flow of people, goods, and services, and Serbia believes that demining could prevent locals moving out from the area.[6]

Cluster Munition Contamination

Cluster munition contamination by municipality (as of end of 2017 and unchanged as of March 2018)[7]

Municipality

Village

CHAs

Area (m2)

SHAs

Area (m2)

Bujanovac

Borovac

2

210,881

1

281,169

Niš

Medoševac

0

0

1

119,344

Raška

Lisina

0

0

1

190,359

Sjenica

Čedovo

2

89,450

2

74,474

Sjenica

Vapa

1

338,416

2

94,496

Tutin

Istočni Mojstir

0

0

1

514,682

Užice

Bioska

0

0

1

585,268

Total

 

5

638,747

9

1,859,792

Note: CHA = confirmed hazardous area; SHA = suspected hazardous area.

This is a reduction from the reported contamination as of the end of 2016; 10 CHAs over a total of 0.83km2, and 13 SHAs over 2.0km2.[8] 

Cluster munition contamination results from North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air strikes in 1999. According to Serbia, NATO cluster munitions struck 16 municipalities: Brus, Bujanovac, Cacak, Gadžin Han, Knic, Kraljevo, Kuršumlija, Leposavic, Niš city-Crveni Krst, Niš city-Medijana, Preševo, Raška, Sjenica, Sopot, Stara Pazova, and Vladimirci.[9] In late 2014, a suspected area was newly identified in Tutin, a municipality not previously thought to be contaminated by cluster munition remnants.[10]

Contamination in Serbia has a socio-economic impact, impeding safe access to forest products, cattle, and mushroom picking. These represent main sources of income in some of the most underdeveloped municipalities, including Bujanovac, Sjenica, and Tutin. In addition, cluster munition contamination impacts transport infrastructure, as well as the development of tourism.[11]

Program Management

According to a Government Decree on Protection against Unexploded Ordnance, the Sector for Emergency Management, under the Ministry of Interior, acts as the national mineaction authority (NMAA).[12] The NMAA is responsible for developing standard operating procedures (SOPs), accrediting deminers, and supervising the work of SMAC.[13] 

SMAC is responsible for coordinating demining, collecting and managing mine action information (including casualty data), and surveying SHAs. It also has a mandate to plan demining projects, conduct quality control (QC) and monitor operations, ensure implementation of international standards, and conduct risk education.[14] 

Strategic planning

The government of Serbia adopts SMAC’s workplan, as well as the Annual Report on its work.[15] 

Serbia prioritizes the demining of areas that directly affect the local population, such as those close to settlements where local people have abandoned their houses and stopped cultivating land due to the fear of landmines. SMAC also noted that donors themselves sometimes also influence the choice of the areas that will be demined first, depending on availability and amount of their funds.[16]

Legislation and standards 

According to SMAC, survey and clearance operationsin Serbia are conducted in accordance with the International Mine Action Standards (IMAS).[17] 

As of April 2018, national mine action standards were still under development.[18] The process, which began in 2015, has been hindered due to lack of capacity.[19]

Serbia uses land release methodologies: non-technical survey, technical survey, and clearance. However, it expresses a preference for manual clearance. This is due, firstly, to the unregistered nature of the remaining mined areas. Secondly, most of the remaining suspected mined areas are mountainous with challenging terrain and thick vegetation. As they have not been accessed since the end of the conflict, in 2000–2001, the land is unmanaged, and therefore less accessible. For these reasons, the SMAC believes that most of the above areas are not appropriate for the use of machinery or mine detection dogs.[20] 

However, for 2017 and 2018, the SMAC prepared technical survey projects, in a form adjusted to the context of Serbia, in response to the stated preference of international donors for technical survey above clearance.[21]

Quality management 

Due to limited SMAC quality management capacity, as of April 2018, the total project area to be sampled by SMAC had been reduced from between 5%–11%, to 3%.[22]

Operators

SMAC conducts survey of areas suspected to contain mines, cluster munition remnants, or other ERW. Clearance is conducted by commercial companies and NGOs, which are selected through public tender procedures executed by ITF Enhancing Human Security (ITF), through international donors.[23]

The Ministry of Interior issues accreditation valid for a period of one year. In 2018, 14 companies/organizations were accredited for demining: seven from Serbia, four from Bosnia and Herzegovina, two from Croatia, and one from Russia.[24]


In 2017, 26 deminers were deployed for the execution of one technical survey project, which was completed. No machinery or mine detection dogs were deployed as the terrain was unsuitable.[25]

The Serbian armed forces maintain a capability to survey, search for, detect, clear, and destroy landmines. This capability includes many types of detection equipment, mechanical clearance assets, disposal experts, and specialist search and clearance teams.[26] An explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) department within the Sector for Emergency Management, in the Ministry of Interior, responds to call-outs for individual items of ERW discovered, and is also responsible for the demolition of items found by SMAC.[27] 

Land Release (mines)

In 2017, 275,800mwas released by technical survey, during which three antipersonnel mines and one other item of UXO were found and destroyed. No mined area was released through full clearance. This represents an increase in output compared to 2016, when no mined area was released through technical survey or clearance.[28] 

Survey in 2017 (mines)

In 2017, a total of 275,800mwas released through manual technical survey in the village of Breznica, Bujanovac municipality, during which three antipersonnel mines and one item of UXO were found and destroyed.[29] The technical survey was undertaken by Saturnia d.o.o. Belgrade.[30]

SMAC reported that during the elaboration of technical survey and clearance projects in 2017, it used data obtained by an unmanned aerial vehicle.[31]

Clearance in 2017 (mines) 

No mine clearance was conducted in 2017, due to lack of available funding.[32] 

SMAC did not know whether any antipersonnel mines were destroyed in 2017 by the EOD department of the Sector for Emergency Management.[33] 

Progress in 2018 (mines) 

A technical survey project totaling 113,600min Ravno Bučje village was completed in May 2018, with five antipersonnel mines and two items of UXO found and safely destroyed. Demining of two areas in Djordjevic village has been granted funding. It is expected that field operations might commence by the end of 2018, once tender procedures for the selection of a contractor have been completed.[34]

Land Release (cluster munition remnants) 

No cluster munition-contaminated area was released by survey.[35] In 2017, however, SMAC did report that it used data obtained from unmanned aerial vehicles during its process to develop cluster munition clearance and technical survey projects.[36] 

Clearance of cluster munition-contaminated areas in 2017[37]

Municipality

Operator

Areas cleared

Area cleared (m2)

Submunitions destroyed

Other UXO destroyed during cluster munition clearance

Sjenica

Saturnia D.O.O. Belgrade

1

177,120

76

1

Total

 

1

177,120

76

1

 

In 2016, 0.9kmwas reduced by technical survey.[38] Clearance results decreased from 2016, when 247,032mwas cleared.[39] 

Deminer safety

One deminer was injured in 2017, during the cluster munition clearance project in the municipality of Sjenica, when a BLU 97 A/B submunition exploded during excavation.[40]

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. Serbia will not meet this deadline.In March 2018, Serbia submitted a second extension request, seeking a further four-year extension to its Article 5 deadline, through to 1 March 2023.

As late as May 2012, Serbia had hoped to meet its original Article 5 deadline,[41] 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.”[42]

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

Serbia reported that it faced several challenges in complying with its Article 5 obligations, foremost of which was the unpredictability of securing financial resources and diminished donor funding through the years, in addition to a preference of donors to fund cluster munition and UXO clearance. Moreover, Serbia reported that the remaining mine contamination is of unrecorded mined areas/groups of mines, with mines having been emplaced with no particular pattern, which has complicated survey and clearance efforts. Furthermore, climatic conditions prevent access to some mined areas for parts of the year and Serbia considers that most of the suspected area is not appropriate for the use of mine detection dogs (MDDs) or machinery. Lastly, Serbia also highlighted challenges posed by contamination from cluster munition remnants and other UXO, which also block access to significant resources and hinder development and infrastructural projects.[43] In the last five years, Serbia has cleared less than one square kilometer of mined area (see table below).

Mine clearance in 2013–2017

Year

Area cleared (km2)

2017

0*

2016

0

2015

0.41

2014

0.27

2013

0

Total

0.68

Note: *0.28km2was reduced by technical survey, during which three antipersonnel mines and one item of UXO were destroyed.

Serbia has fallen well behind the clearance plan it set out in its 2013 Article 5 deadline extension request, which envisaged clearance of 489,276min 2013; 572,116m2in 2014; 414,668min 2015; 256,185min 2016; 247,000min 2017; 160,000min 2018; and 138,000min 2019.[44] Serbia subsequently adjusted its workplan in 2015, 2016, and 2017, but fell behind on land release output for each of the updated plans.[45]

In the draft of its latest Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline extension request, submitted on 14 March 2018, Serbia included a workplan for the completion of demining during the period 2018–2023.[46] If the funds for demining operations are available, Serbia intends to use non-technical survey, technical survey, manual clearance, mechanical demining (where applicable), and MDDs (where applicable) to complete clearance in Serbia before the 2023 deadline.[47]

Progress is, however, contingent on funding and Serbia has stated that if it cannot secure international funding for demining, its workplan will be directly affected. On the other hand, if more funds are provided, Serbia maintains it could implement its workplan in a shorter period.

As of June 2018, Serbia had not secured the national and international funds required for the requested second extension period.[48] 

Serbia has calculated that it requires an estimated €2.5 million to complete the release of all remaining mined areas, of which €900,000 is planned to come from the national budget and around €1.6 million from ITF and other sources of international funding.[49] In addition to approaching potential donors, SMAC will continue to raise awareness of the funding problem and seek funding from state authorities, public enterprises, and local authorities.[50] 

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) noted that as the first extension request was said to lack ambition by States Parties, and that as the second extension request is for a similar amount of land to be released in a similar amount of time (the first extension period was to clear 3.3km2 over five years), it believes that Serbia could be more ambitious in its targets in the second extension period.[51]

Progress towards completion of cluster munition clearance 

SMAC reports that, for the time being, any funding that is secured will be used to prioritize survey and clearance of antipersonnel mines, to contribute towards meeting its obligation under the Mine Ban Treaty. 

SMAC reported that while it had prepared several cluster munition clearance projects, these could not be implemented due to lack of funding in 2017.[52] 

In the draft of its latest Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline extension request, dated 31 March 2018, Serbia includes a workplan for completion of cluster munition and UXO clearance by 2023, at a predicted total cost of €20 million, however cluster munition remnants are not disaggregated from other ERW.[53] Progress in cluster munition clearance is contingent on funding. Serbia predicts that if adequate funds for implementation of survey and clearance projects were secured, cluster munition clearance could be finished in three years.[54]

In 2010–2013, significant progress was made in clearing cluster munition-contaminated areas, but since then progress has stalled. Less than 4km2in total has been cleared in the last five years (see table below). 

Clearance of cluster munition remnants in 2014–2017[55]

Year

Area cleared (km2)

2017

0.18

2016

0.25

2015

0.18

2014

0.29

2013

2.40

Total

3.30

 

 

The Monitor acknowledges the contributions of the Mine Action Review (www.mineactionreview.org), which has conducted the primary mine action research in 2018 and shared all its country-level landmine reports (from “Clearing the Mines 2018”) and country-level cluster munition reports (from “Clearing Cluster Munition Remnants 2018”) with the Monitor. The Monitor is responsible for the findings presented online and in its print publications.

 



[1] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, pp. 7, 8, 23, and 24; Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2017), Form C; and email from Slađana Košutić, Planning and International Cooperation Advisor, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[2] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 6 April 2017; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2016), Form D.

[3] Interview with Jovica Simonović, Director, SMAC, Belgrade, 16 May 2017; and Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, p. 7.

[4] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, pp. 7, 8, 23, and 24; Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2017), Form C; and email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[5] Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline Extension Request, March 2013, p. 5; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2014), Form C.

[6] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, pp. 7, 11, 25, and 27; and email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[7] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, p. 24; and email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[8] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 6 April 2017.

[9] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Intersessional Meetings, Standing Committee on Mine Clearance, Geneva, 21 June 2011; interview with Petar Mihajlović, Director, and Slađana Košutic, SMAC, Belgrade, 25 March 2011; and SMAC, “About us,” undated.

[10] Email from Branislav Jovanović, SMAC, 4 May 2015.

[11] Ibid., 12 April 2018.

[12] Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 70/13.

[13] Emails from Darvin Lisica, then-NPA Regional Programme Manager, 6 May and 12 June 2016; and Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, p. 17.

[14] “Law of Alterations and Supplementations of the Law of Ministries,” Official Gazette, 84/04, August 2004; and Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, p. 17.

[15] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, p. 16.

[16] Ibid., p. 30; and email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[17] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, p. 19.

[18] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[19] Interview with Jovica Simonović, SMAC, Belgrade, 16 May 2017.

[20] Additional Information to Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, received 28 June 2018.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[23] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, p. 18.

[24] Ibid., p. 17.

[25] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[26] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2017), Form J.

[27] Interview with Jovica Simonović, SMAC, Belgrade, 16 May 2017.

[28] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 6 April 2017; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2016), Form D.

[29] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, pp. 6 and 12; and email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[30] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Additional Information to Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, received 28 June 2018.

[35] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid., 6 April 2017.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 12 April 2018.

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

[42] Analysis of Serbia’s Article 5 deadline Extension Request, submitted by the President of the 12th Meeting of States Parties on behalf of the States Parties mandated to analyze request for extensions, 2 December 2013.

[43] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, pp. 6, 7, 25, and 27; Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year r2017), Form C; and email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[44] Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 deadline Extension Request, March 2013, p. 26.

[45] Preliminary observations of the Committee on Article 5 Implementation, Mine Ban Treaty 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 Implementation Support Unit (ISU), 3 March 2016, and provided to Mine Action Review by the ISU upon request; email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 6 April 2017; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2016), Form D.

[46] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, pp. 8, 9, 31, and 32.

[47] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, p. 28; and Additional Information to Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, received 28 June 2018; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2017), Form C.

[48] “Mine Action Programme of Serbia: Status and challenges in implementation of the obligations under the anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention,” SMAC presentation for the individualized approach side meeting, Mine Ban Treaty Intersessional Meetings, Geneva, 7 June 2018.

[49] Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, pp. 9 and 34.

[50] Ibid., p. 34.

[51] ICBL comments on Serbia’s extension request, Mine Ban Treaty Intersessional Meetings, 7–8 June 2018.

[52] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[53] SMAC, “About us,” undated; and Mine Ban Treaty Second Article 5 deadline Extension Request, 14 March 2018, pp. 16 and 33.

[54] Email from Slađana Košutić, SMAC, 12 April 2018.

[55] Data from Cluster Munition Monitor profiles.


Support for Mine Action

Last updated: 19 November 2018

In 2017, the United States (US) contributed US$1.3 million to mine action in the Republic of Serbia.[1]

In 2012, Serbia reported, for the first time, that it supported its mine action program in 2012 through a contribution of €150,000 ($192,885).[2] While in 2017, Serbia contributed €100,000 ($113,010) to its mine action program.[3]

Since 2013, international contributions to mine action activities in Serbia totaled nearly $5 million.

Summary of contributions: 2013–2017[4]

Year

Amount ($)

2017

1,250,000

2016

350,000

2015

134,872

2014

1,823,324

2013

1,400,000

Total

4,958,196

 



[1] Email from Katherine Baker, Foreign Affairs Officer, Weapons Removal and Abatement, US Department of State, 8 October 2018.

[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] Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Article 5 Extension Request, March 2018, p. 9.

[4] See previous Monitor reports. Totals in 2015, 2014, and 2013 have been updated as a result of revised US funding data.


Casualties

Last updated: 06 October 2017

Casualties Overview

All known casualties by end 2016

Unknown, but significantly more than 1,000

Casualties in 2016

2 (2015: 6)

2016 casualties by outcome

2 injured (2015: 4 killed; 2 injured)

2016 casualties by item type

1 explosive remnants of war (ERW); 1 unexploded cluster submunition

 

In 2016, the Monitor identified two casualties in the Republic of Serbia, both of whom were injured. One person was injured by an ERW.[1] One deminer was injured by an unexploded submunition.[2]

The two ERW casualties identified in 2016 represented a decrease from the six ERW casualties reported in 2015 and the 11 casualties reported in 2014, injured by ERW or victim-activated improvised explosive devices (IEDs).[3]

Mine/ERW casualties continued to be recorded in 2017. Three casualties were identified by the Monitor from January to June 2017. The Ministry of Interior reported two ERW casualties in the period January to April 2017, both injured.[4] In May 2017, a deminer was injured during clearance activities.[5]

In addition, there was an explosion in the military weapons disposal facility Medna, Kragujevac, on 28 February 2017, resulting in four persons killed (one killed and three missing in the initial explosion) and 25 injured. The circumstances and cause of the explosion had not been clarified as of June 2017.[6]

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.[7]

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.[8]

Cluster munition casualties

In August 2016, a deminer was injured in a clearance accident with an unexploded cluster submunition on Mount Kapoanik, close to a popular ski resort in Kruševac. The most recent previous casualties due to unexploded submunitions occurred near the same spot in 2012, when two clearance accidents killed three deminers.[9]

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.[10] 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.[11]



[1]Eksplozija bombe u dvorištu kuće kod Jagodine" ("Explosion of a bomb in the courtyard of a house in Jagodina”), N1, 19 October 2016.

[2] “Discovered ERW/UXO and consequences of their detonation – total for 2016,” sent by Jasmina Vasiljević, Chief Police Inspector, Head of the Bureau for Information of Public Importance, Ministry of Internal Affairs, 24 May 2017; and “Deminer teško ranjen u eksploziji kasetne bombe na Kopaoniku,” infoKOP.net, 21 August 2016.

[3] “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; and, “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.

[4] “Discovered ERW/UXO and consequences of their detonation in the period January – April 2917,” sent by Jasmina Vasiljević, Ministry of Internal Affairs, 24 May 2017.

[6]Explosions blasted a military facility in Medna,” Politika, 28 February 2017; and “The cause of the tragedy in TRZ ‘Medna’ is unknown,” Glavne Vesti, 26 June 2017.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

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

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


Victim Assistance

Last updated: 20 October 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 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.

Victim Assistance

As of March 2017, Serbia reported a total of 1,123 survivors (790 men and 333 women) with disabilities.[1]

Victim assistance since 2015

The working group on victim assistance met two or three times since it officially launched in February 2015.[2]

No survivor needs assessments were conducted since 2012 at the national level, although organizations of veterans and civilian war victims continued to collect information on the needs of their members at the local level.[3]

Victim assistance in 2016

Numerous local survivor associations exist to provide peer support and advocate for members’ rights, though they have limited financial resources or none at all. Since 2010, Assistance Advocacy Access Serbia (AAAS) has worked with local survivor associations to strengthen their capacity to carry out national advocacy and work for improved victim assistance.

Few changes were identified in the availability of or access to services and programs by mine/ERW survivors in 2016.[4]

Assessing victim assistance needs

The new Working Group on Victim Assistance headed by the MLEVSA was working to consolidate information into a single database of mine/ERW survivors.[5] However, no progress was made with regards to the database by March 2017.[6] 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.[7] 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).[8]

Victim assistance coordination

Government coordinating body/focal point

Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veteran’s and Social Affairs (MLEVSA), Sector for Protection of Veterans with Disabilities

Coordinating mechanism

Working Group on Victim Assistance

Plan

None

 

The working group on victim assistance 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.[9]

The working group’s tasks included enhancing the legislative framework for the protection 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.[10] 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 October 2017.[11]

During 2016, the MLEVSA, as the victim assistance focal point, consulted with associations of mine survivors to share information about working group discussions.[12]

Serbia did not provide an update on progress and challenges in implementing victim assistance at the Convention on Cluster Munitions Meeting of States Parties in September 2016, at the Fifteenth Meeting of States Parties to the Mine Ban Treaty in December 2016, or at the Mine Ban Treaty intersessional meetings in June 2017. Serbia submitted its Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report for calendar year 2016, which includes information on victim assistance.[13]

Survivor inclusion and participation

In 2016, survivors and survivor groups did not participate in meetings of the working group on victim assistance. The group planned to include survivors in upcoming meetings.[14] Previously, survivor organizations were represented in consultations with the MLEVSA on the establishment of the victim assistance working group.[15]

Survivor groups worked with local authorities to promote local accessibility and other action plans, including enabling local disabled sports associations.[16]

The MLEVSA launches a call for proposals for all NGOs working on the rights of survivors twice yearly. In 2016, priority was given to projects which aimed to improve the social inclusion of survivors through community-based initiatives.[17]

Service accessibility and effectiveness

Victim assistance activities

Name of organization

Type of organization

Type of activity

SHROP

Government

Physical rehabilitation and psychological support

Military Medical Academy (VMA)

Government

Medical services, physical rehabilitation, and psychological and psychiatric support

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

Government

Support for physical and professional rehabilitation of disabled veterans

Association of Disabled Veterans of War and Peace

National association

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

Civilian War Victims Association, Smederevo

Local NGO

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

Association of Veterans with Disabilities, Vlasotince

Local NGO

Psychological support and social inclusion; accessibility projects; advocacy

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.[18] No changes were identified in the quality or availability of medical care in 2016 and through April 2017. 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.[19] Only basic services were available through local health centers.[20]

Physical rehabilitation

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 imported the items needed. These items had to be paid for by the survivors, who used their disability pensions to cover the costs.[21] 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.[22]

Survivor associations were concerned at 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.[23]

In 2016, the MLEVSA allocated Xeno power wheelchairs, enabling an upright position, to six patients.[24]

Psychological support and social inclusion

Professional psychological support through the public health sector was insufficient.[25] Several local survivor associations continued to provide psychological and peer support to mine victims and family members.

Inclusive sports continued in 2016. AAAS and the Sports Association for Persons with Disabilities (SSOSIK) developed sports for persons with disabilities at the local level. In 2017, sports for persons with disabilities were taught in two state faculties for sports and physical education in Serbia.[26]

A creative space for survivors and other artists was founded in 2015 by the Association of Disabled Veterans of War and Peace, however it struggled to maintain funding in 2016.[27]

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,[28] however, bureaucratic procedures prevented some survivors from accessing these benefits.[29] Moreover, the national ombudsman reported that the Law on the Rights of Civilian Invalids of War sets a series of conditions that de facto exclude almost 90% of the victims.[30]

Unemployment and discrimination in hiring remained a serious problem for persons with disabilities.[31]

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).[32]

The Law on the Protection of Veterans with Disabilities was submitted to parliament, but the process of adoption remained pending due to presidential elections in April 2017, after it was initially delayed when a general election was called in December 2015.[33] Survivors had participated in drafting the law and provided input on the draft law in 2014.[34]

In 2016, 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 reported that access to services remained difficult.[35] Persons with disabilities continued to face stigmatization and segregation in 2016.[36] Persons with disabilities continued to suffer from discrimination and high levels of unemployment. They had little access to education and other basic services.[37]

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.[38] A rulebook regulates the accessibility of healthcare facilities.[39]

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.[40] A rulebook on sign language to fill this gap was adopted in 2017.[41] A decision on the standardization of the parking card for persons with disabilities was adopted on 2 March 2017, which aligns with the standards of the European Union.[42]

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.[43] The Proposal of the Strategy for Improvement of the Position of Persons with Disability in the Republic of Serbia by 2024 was drafted and awaiting the opinion of the European Commission as of March 2017.[44] Throughout 2016, civilian war victims and other persons with disabilities continued to have less access to assistance as compared with military victims.[45]

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, therefore military victims from those conflicts are unable to obtain necessary records to receive pensions and other services.[46]

Under the law on the rights of civilians disabled in war, family members are entitled to monthly cash income if, prior to the death of the survivor, they had shared the same household.[47] Widows are entitled to financial assistance with burial, but many do not know their rights.[48]



[1] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2016), Form H; and response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs (MLEVSA), 29 March 2017.

[2] Interview with Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, Belgrade, 2 April 2017.

[3] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Dejan Ivanovic, Executive Director, Assistance Advocacy Access Serbia (AAAS), 21 May 2017.

[4] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017.

[5] Interview with Tanja Pušonja, Advisor, MLEVSA, Belgrade, 17 May 2016.

[6] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017.

[7] Statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Third Review Conference, Maputo, 24 June 2014; and Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2016), Form H.

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

[9] 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 Pušonja, MLEVSA, in Geneva, 24 June 2015; and Belgrade, 17 May 2016; and statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Committee on Victim Assistance, Geneva, 25 June 2015.

[10] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2016), Form H; and statement of Serbia, Mine Ban Treaty Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 1 December 2015.

[11] 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; interviews with Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 24 June 2015, and 17 May 2016; and response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017; and email, 6 October 2017.

[12] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017.

[13] Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 Report (for calendar year 2016), Form H.

[14] Interview with Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, Belgrade, 2 April 2017.

[15] 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.

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

[17] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017; and interview, Belgrade, 2 April 2017.

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

[19] Responses to Monitor questionnaire by Dejan Ivanovic, AAAS, 21 May2017; 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.

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

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

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017.

[25] 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.

[26] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Dejan Ivanovic, AAAS, 21 May 2017.

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

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

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

[30] Protector of Citizens, Ombudsman of Serbia, “Regular Annual Report of the Protector of Citizens for 2016,” 13 June 2017.

[31] United States (US) Department of State, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016: Serbia,” Washington, DC, March 2017; Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, “2015 Regular Annual Report,” Belgrade, 15 March 2016, pp. 65–66; and Protector of Citizens, Ombudsman of Serbia, “Regular Annual Report of the Protector of Citizens for 2016,” 31 December 2016, p. 13.

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

[33] Interviews with Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, Belgrade, 17 May 2016, and 2 April 2017.

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

[35] European Commission, “Serbia 2016 Report,” Brussels, 9 November 2016, pp. 62–63.

[36] US Department of State, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016: Serbia,” March 2017.

[37] Ibid.

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

[39] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017.

[41] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017.

[42] Ibid.

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

[44] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017.

[45] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Dejan Ivanovic, AAAS, 21 May 2017.

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

[47] Response to Monitor questionnaire by Tanja Pušonja, MLEVSA, 29 March 2017; and Law on Civilian Invalids of War, Official Gazette of RS, No. 52/96, 1 April 1997.

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