Serbia Handbook for Legal Aid Providers Final

Client is an IDP from Crkvena Vodica village in Obilić municipality. Her home was
destroyed in 1999 and again in 2004 and she lives with her family of 4 in a container
in Gracanica. Since her displacement, the demographics of Obilić has changed
dramatically from 50% Serbian to 1% Serbian, there is no school for her children in
their own language, there are security concerns and the coal mine has expanded
ever closer to the village. She has not left Kosovo and wants to locally integrate into
Gracanica and has applied to be allocated into one of the homes in a neighbourhood
that is being built by the Serbian government in Novi Badovac. The Priština municipal
government have stalled the process several times, despite UNMIK involvement.
They argue she should return to Crkvena Vodica.
Over a decade since the end of the conflict, there remain several areas in Kosovo and Metohija
where it would be dangerous or impossible to provide full restitution to an IDP in the form of returning
to their original homes. This may be attributed to security/safety issues, the area has become overpopulated
over the years, there may be no chance for obtaining an education for children or
employment, or the demographics of the area may have changed so dramatically that “home” is no
longer home. This problem was recognized by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights;
(f) Location: Adequate housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options,
heath-services, schools, child-care facilities and other social facilities….Similarly, housing shall not
be built on polluted sites nor in immediate proximity to pollution sources that threaten the right to
health of the inhabitants. 39 ”
For a number of reasons, formal assistance by the UNMIK office of returns, the UNHCR, the Kosovo
Ministry of Returns and others has rarely been given and no significant returns were effectuated. The
meetings with heads of villages in return areas had limited success. However, there are several
examples where Serbian government successfully implemented secondary displacement projects
without the help of the international community. (e.g. Zvecan, North Mitrovica, the Bosniak Mahala
and in Novi Badovac). There are several secondary displacement projects that have stalled for
years.. As a result of this there are many areas that have shells of homes but no water or electricity
and are not habitable for years, for example in Novi Badovac.
If it is not possible to return someone to their home in dignity then alternatives such as secondary
displacement are warranted.
It is important to note, that by choosing not to return to his/her place of origin the IDP has not waived
their right to restitution.
It is a governments’ responsibility to ensure that return to one’s home is done with dignity and safety.
If the government fails to do so, it does not relive the obligation to resolve the displacement and
restitution of the IDP.
Does restitution necessarily mean physical return and repossession of one’s original home
or lands or are other intermediate outcomes also considered as durable solutions?
39 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights during it’s sixth session in 1991 under General Comment Number 4,
The right to adequate housing, (Article 11.1 of the Covenant), paragraph 7