The National Assembly of the Republic of Srpska (NSRS) adopted a Declaration on the closure of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and pro-Bosniak political representatives from the entity of Republic of Srpska responded to that document with a counter-declaration in which they contest its key claims.
The counter-declaration on the protection of constitutional order and the legitimacy of the Office of the High Representative in BiH was signed by politicians from pro-Bosniak parties who were elected to positions in the territory of Republic of Srpska.
- We, pro-Bosniak representatives elected to government bodies in/from Republic of Srpska, proceeding from the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, international law and the positions of the Constitutional Court of BiH and the Venice Commission, declare that the Declaration on the closure of the OHR adopted by the National Assembly of Republic of Srpska is legally unfounded, politically harmful and contrary to the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina - states the introductory part of the document.
Nine points
The document contains nine points in which the claims from the NSRS declaration are answered in detail.
In the first point, it is noted that the OHR was established by Annex 10 of the Dayton Peace Agreement, while the second contests the claims about so-called Bonn Powers.
- Bonn Powers are not "extra-contractual", but rather a legitimate development of the mandate confirmed by the PIC and accepted in the practice of the United Nations Security Council. The United Nations Security Council regularly accepted their use through reports of the Secretary-General and welcomed them through resolutions - the text states.
In the third point, it is emphasized that the Venice Commission confirmed the legitimacy of Bonn Powers as part of the evolution of the OHR mandate.
- The Venice Commission confirmed that Bonn Powers are a legitimate evolution of the mandate and that they enabled key reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Commission never concluded that the OHR or Bonn Powers were illegal - it states.
The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as further emphasized, has repeatedly confirmed the legal force of OHR decisions.
- The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has repeatedly confirmed that OHR decisions have the legal force of domestic laws, so the NSRS claim about "nullity" is legally untenable. Such a claim is in direct contradiction with the judicial practice of the Constitutional Court and represents a unilateral denial of acts that are an integral part of the legal order of Bosnia and Herzegovina - it states in the fourth point.
Appointment of the High Representative
It further states that the appointment of the High Representative is made by the PIC and that confirmation by the United Nations Security Council was not the practice.
- The appointment of the High Representative is made by the PIC, and United Nations practice confirms that Security Council confirmation was never required. This is evident from the appointment of all previous High Representatives. The United Nations welcomed appointments by the PIC and consistently supported their work without contesting the procedure. The claim about "material violation of Annex 10" is a political construction without basis in international law - it states.
Pro-Bosniak politicians also emphasize the role of the OHR in preserving BiH's constitutional order.
- The OHR played an irreplaceable role in protecting the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina, its territorial integrity and the rights of constituent peoples. The imposition of decisions was aimed at removing blockades and protecting the Dayton Agreement - the document states.
Implementation of Annex 7
Special emphasis is placed on the role of the OHR in the implementation of Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement which concerns the return of refugees and displaced persons.
- The role of the OHR in the process of return of refugees and displaced persons is one of the most concrete arguments for its continued existence. The OHR had a key role in promoting and supporting returns, especially minority returns of Bosniaks and Croats to Republic of Srpska - it states.
In conclusion, it is emphasized that the closure of the OHR can only follow after the fulfillment of conditions from the 5+2 Agenda and that the blockades of the authorities of Republic of Srpska have contributed to the fact that those conditions have not yet been met.
The signatories of the counter-declaration are Edin Ramić, Ćamil Duraković, Ramiz Salkić, Amir Hurtić, Mirsad Duratović, Alija Tabaković, Armin Hamzić, Dževad Mahmutović and Smail Mešić.