The Croatian government pledged to rebuild 8,000 homes in order to facilitate the return of refugees.¹ President Mesic and Prime Minister Racan issue a call in 2003 for all refugees to return: “I call on all the refugees, citizens of Croatia, to return to their homeland and use the opportunity that is being given.”² UNHCR begins to close their offices in Croatia. Their final estimate was that “by the end of 2003, over 100,000 Croatian Serbs had returned to their homes, while an estimated 230,00 internally displaced persons had also gone back.”³

The UNHCR stated that the GoC needed to work on issues of citizenship and tenancy rights.⁴

The head of the OSCE mission to Croatia, Bernard Poncet, said one of Croatia’s main failures in meeting its international obligations was a “lack of progress … in the areas of refugee return, repossession of property and reconstruction.”⁵ A few months later, the OSCE argued that “Without question the most pressing issue to be addressed and resolved is the sustainable return to Croatia of its refugee Serb population.” The OSCE called for the adoption of a legal framework for expeditious repossession of occupied property by their legitimate owners.⁶ Later that year, the head of the Helsinki Human Rights Watch in the Bosnian Serb Republic estimated that between 40,000 and 50,000 Serbs had been denied their right to ownership of their property in Croatia.⁷

In January, a pro-European reformist government came to power in Croatia and enacted new laws to address the problems of refugees.¹ The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that in the year 2000 around 18,000 Croatian Serbs returned.

In February, an UN envoy observed that the laws and programs adopted by the government and parliament for refugees were not implemented at the local level.⁸ The OSCE (the main international observer in Croatia) reported that Croatia was “stagnating” on its promises to refugees, such as allowing refugees to return to their homes and property.⁹ Croatia’s President Tudjman, largely regarded by Western observers as an obstacle to the return of Serb refugees died in office in late 1999.¹⁰

The UN Security Council laments continued “harassment and intimidation” of ethnic Serb returnees.¹¹ In December, the EU informs the GoC that future aid will depend upon the return of Serb refugees and nondiscriminatory polies.¹²

UNTAES reports in the early part of 1997 that “little progress has been made as regards the return of refugees and displaced persons.”¹³

UNTAES reports that senior officials in the Croatian Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees (ODPR) have made public discriminatory remarks about displaced Serbs being denied ODPR refugee benefits if they choose to vote in the upcoming elections.¹⁴

UNTAES reports that 1,836 Serb families (7,303 persons) crossed the border into Yugoslavia from Croatia. Most reported security concerns in Croatia as their reason for leaving.¹⁵

In March, the UN Security Council called upon Croatia to improve conditions of personal and economic security for Serbs wishing to return, to resolve the return-of-property issue, and remove uncertainty about the implementation of the amnesty law for Serbs.¹⁶

US Secretary of State, Madeline Albright talks with Croatian leaders about ethnic Serbs being attacked and beaten by Croatian mobs.¹⁷

Many Serbs who have a valid citizenship certificate, called the domovnica, now cannot use it to return to their homes in Croatia. The GoC has disclosed no alternative or procedure, other than the fact that the domovnica will not be honored as an official Croatian document.¹⁸

The current legal framework makes Croat occupation of Serb houses essentially indefinite. The GoC passed the Law on the Lease of Flats in the Liberated Territory and the Law of Temporary Takeover which gave Serbs a matter of 2-3 months to legally reclaim their property or someone could legally occupy it. The second law states that no one can be evicted from a temporary takeover without having alternative housing provided for them. Due to the shortage of housing, this makes all occupations essentially permanent. Getting legal help is difficult for Serbs because the GoC stated that Serbian lawyers cannot practice law in Croatia until they pay for a new Croatian law license. According to UNTAES, most of those who are forcefully evicted from houses are the rightful Serb owners of the home.¹⁹ In December of 1997, around 6,000 Croats and 9,000 Serbs returned to their homes in Croatia (UNTAES: Recent Development, December 22, 1997).

UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali reported that the return of Serbs to their homes was being obstructed: “Disturbing reports continue to be received that (Croatian) government offices responsible for expediting this procedure are conducting their work in an uncooperative and obstructive manner.” The report speaks of widespread abuses against the minority Serb population by the Croatian government that must stop.¹⁵

In February 1996, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Croatia issued a “Report by the Government of Croatia on the Implementation of Security Council resolution 1019” regarding issues such as refugee rights. The report by the GoC indicates that 5,000 people have filed requests to return to Croatia and 1,841 have been processed.¹⁹

Before the Basic Agreement (in August 1995), the Croatian Parliament adopted a bill requiring refugees to reclaim their property within three months or have their belongings—both real and moveable property including furniture—expropriated. The UN special rapporteur for human rights fiercely criticized the bill. While the GoC later suspended the time limit, such a posture combined with cumbersome regulation undoubtedly signaled a weak commitment to the property rights of displaced Serbs.²⁰

The Secretary General’s report from June 1996 highlights that large numbers of Croats who were displaced from Eastern Slavonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Yugoslav Federation have returned and/or migrated to Eastern Slavonia and have occupied the property of displaced Serbs, who have not yet returned. This population transfer is attributed in large part to the GoC’s issuance of the Decree on the Rights of Returnees, which terminated displaced status on 30 June 1996. The GoC also passed a law on 17 May 1996 that provides benefits and the possibility of gaining ownership of empty property to persons who move to the region; this caused a large migration of people, mostly Croats, to Easter Slavonia.²¹

International observers noted that the Croatian authorities governing the rehabilitation programs are favoring Croat beneficiaries. Government funding for home reconstruction, for example, has gone mostly to Croat recipients. International observers also report that Serbs are being denied identify documents that are required by the GoC to receive rehabilitation assistance and other benefits made available by donors.²²

Calls for Croatia to increase the level of protection being offered to ethnic Serbs continued throughout 1996 in an effort to repatriate remaining refugees.²³ Under pressure from the international community, the GoC offers amnesty to Serbs to facilitate their return.²⁴

There are no reports of return of internally displaced persons in 1995.

The newspaper, The Independent, interviewed a Serb refugee trying to return to the family home in the Knin area. Dragoslav Dupor had taken his wife, three children and grandchild and fled by car into Serbia when the government of Croatia attacked the area where he lived. Ten years later, in 2005, they had not yet been able to get their house back. The house had been sold to a Croat family by the Government of Croatia. Through the “Agency for Mediation in Real Estate” (APN) the Dupor family home had been sold using forged power of attorney paperwork years earlier.

Formed in 1997, the APN spent EUR 200m buying over 8,000 Serb homes in Krajina and Slavonia. Those in charge of APN admitted that organized crime members and corrupt government officials bought and sold homes that didnÕt belong to them for an extended period. Much of the money went into private pockets, as families moved into their new homes purchased with fraudulent documents.

Goatti, the newest leader of APN, told investigators that as many as half of the 8,380 Serb homes sold to APN were fraud. Pupovac, another investigator says that the number is closer to 90 percent fraud. In all, thousands of houses of Serb refugees were bought by the Government of Croatia and sold to new Croatian families using fraudulent paperwork – only one arrest was made at the APN.²²

A senior Croatian diplomat tells The Independent that “there are reasonable grounds for believing” that the swindle of Serbian homes in Croatia was deliberate and part of a “refined method of ethnic cleansing.” Out of the 600,000 Serbs that lived in Croatia before the war, only 200,000 remained in 2005.²³

The same new story reveals that 186 Serb villages still lack electricity in 2004.²⁴

A decade after the accord, the GoC continued to face criticism by the OSCE over judicial bias against Serbs preventing them from returning to their occupied homes.²⁵ The US State Department reported in 2005 that they saw major problems with the process of property restitution for Serb refugees.²⁶ The UN commented in June that the return rate for refugees was slowing down in 2005.²⁷ A European Commission report in 2005 echoes the claim that Serbs cannot return if they do not have the legal means to reclaim their houses and property.²⁸ According to the UN, roughly 40 percent of all refugees from Croatia returned by the end of 2005.²⁹