Speakers and participants at the seminar Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina has been a member of the Council of Europe since 2002 and has signed the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) together with its additional protocols. Unlike in Germany, the application of the ECHR is enshrined directly in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Article 2) and takes precedence over all other laws.
Given the constitutional significance of the ECHR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in view of the fact that the number of complaints from Bosnia and Herzegovina received by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is relatively low compared with other states, we held discussions with trainee judges in Sarajevo on 11 and 12 June 2026 on Article 5 (Liberty and Security), Article 6 (Fair Trial) and Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the ECHR. The seminar focused on the obligations arising for the governments of the signatory states under the European Convention on Human Rights: What significance does the ECHR have for the drafting of judgements by national courts? When does discrimination occur, and how do direct and indirect discrimination differ?
Both the expert representing the IRZ and one of the speakers from Bosnia and Herzegovina practise as lawyers and represent clients before the ECtHR. This gave the seminar content a particularly practical relevance for the participants. The seminar was rounded off by the participants working together to resolve sample cases drawn from the ECtHR’s case law.
Sincere thanks also go to the co-organiser, the Centre for the Training of Judges and Prosecutors of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CEST FBiH). The IRZ has enjoyed a close working relationship with this project partner for almost twenty years.
Prof. Dr. Marko Knežević, Connected online Bosnia and Herzegovina
The lengthy duration of court proceedings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly in civil law, is the European Union's main criticism in the legal sphere. Despite a wide range of legal reforms in recent years, the situation in this regard has not improved significantly.
There are many reasons for this. They range from reforms without a uniform concept, which led to hybrid laws, to ambiguous legal wording and uncertainties regarding the understanding of the roles of judges. In individual cases, structural framework conditions, varying degrees of preparation, and challenges in the material management of proceedings can also play a role.
This complex situation prompted IRZ, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Civil Law Forum, and the Center for the Education of Judges and Prosecutors of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to hold a regional workshop on this topic in Sarajevo in November.
Judges, lawyers, and researchers discussed in particular whether the court should take on an active role or limit itself to the function of an arbitrator, whose primary task is to ensure compliance with procedural rules.
It became clear that, contrary to a widespread misunderstanding in the practice of the successor states of Yugoslavia, the abolition of the former principle of ex officio with regard to the determination of possible evidence did not mean that the courts now had to be passive in all areas. Many of the participants welcomed more active case management by judges, but were unsure to what extent this could (still) be reconciled with the applicable legal provisions. Some therefore called for a reform of the civil procedure codes of both entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina dating from 2003. This was intended to strengthen the active role of the judiciary, analogous to the reform in Germany in 2003.
In this context, it was pointed out that German law was ideally suited as a source of inspiration, with Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure in its current version being highlighted as the “Magna Carta of civil procedure law”.
The High Representative Christian Schmidt for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Copyright photo: OHR Bosnien und Herzegowina
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana, Spanish philosopher, writer and literary critic). That is why, in 2021, the then High Representative Valentin Inzko declared the denial of genocide and other war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina a criminal offence.
Countries such as Germany and Rwanda have experience in this area, which is why the Office of the High Representative, the International Academy of the Nuremberg Principles, the transnational non-governmental organisation TRIAL International and IRZ, with the support of the British and Austrian embassies, held the conference "Criminalising Genocide Denial: Law, Accountability and Prevention" in Sarajevo on 24 and 25 September.
The conference, which was opened by the current High Representative Christian Schmidt, the Director of the International Academy of the Nuremberg Principles Prof. Dr. Christoph Safferling and the Permanent Representative of the German Ambassador Bernhard Abels, featured speeches by former ECtHR judge Prof. Dr. Angelika Nussberger, former Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Dr. Serge Brammertz, former High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina Valentin Inzko, and, joining online from New York, former UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, rehabilitation and non-repetition Prof. Dr. Pablo de Greiff.
One thing became particularly clear during these two days: denying war crimes constitutes a further injustice to the victims and survivors. It also creates a social and political breeding ground for the division of society through ethnically defined narratives, thus contributing to renewed destabilisation in post-conflict areas.
However, legal issues also need to be clarified when implementing criminal provisions. For example, when is a statement considered public and therefore punishable by law? As Germany has experience in this area, IRZ and the International Academy Nuremberg Principles are planning further joint activities to train prosecutors and judges in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These activities can then build on the findings of this event.
We would like to thank, among others, the following for their participation:
the Deputy Director of the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site, Dr Christoph Thonfeld,
