E-mail: kontra@kontra.hr, info@iskorak.org tel.: 091/1680 668, fax.: 01 / 457 33 72






Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice





The publication of this report is made possible by the financial support of the National Foundation for Civil Society Development in concordance with contract no. 421-02/06-PP-4/25. The opinions expressed within this report are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the National Foundation for Civil Society Development. The National Foundation for Civil Society Development, Kušlanova 27, http://zaklada.civilnodrustvo.hr









2006 Annual Report on the Status of Human Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities in Croatia






Introduction

Background on Legal Changes

The Team for Legal Changes of Kontra and Iskorak was founded in spring 2002 and this was the beginning of more intense advocacy of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) changes to Croatian laws.

While advocating LGBT human rights, we have often referred to international documents, especially those issued by the European Parliament and Council of Europe, as Croatia has submitted a request for membership of the EU.

Our cooperation with Slovenian, Serbian, Bosnian, Kosovar and Macedonian lesbian and LGBT groups was also very helpful because similar changes have been happening in other countries in the region.

In 2003 the greatest improvement occurred concerning the protection of sexual and gender minority rights through legislation. After our successful advocacy for LGBT human rights, the majority of our bill proposals were passed in July 2003 in Croatian Parliament.

For the first time, sexual orientation was explicitly recognized as a separately identified criterion for groups liable to specific kinds of discrimination. Changes to Croatian legislation were a result of our advocacy and the pressure of Croatia applying to enter the European Union. Prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation were implemented into four Croatian laws (Sex Equality Act, Penal Code, Labour Act, Scientific Work and Higher Education Act) and schoolbook standards. Also the Same-sex Civil Unions Act was passed in July 2003.

Most of the above laws were passed on the same day by the Croatian Parliament and came into force on 16th July 2003.

We continued with our advocacy activities and in 2004 a new article was implemented into the Amendments and Modifications of the Criminal Code Act, which places sexual orientation explicitly into Article 174 “Race, and Other Discrimination against the Criminal Code”. The Amendments and Modifications of the Criminal Code Act, including this new change, were passed by Parliament on 13th July 2004. Also, the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights accepted an amendment the Media Act that referred to sexual orientation and this was passed by Parliament on 10th May 2004.

The past four years have been big turning points in legislation for the Croatian LGBT community. However, although some LGBT rights are now recognized by Croatian legislation, people are still afraid to use them. In most cases they do not report violence to the Croatian courts because they do not trust Croatian legislation and administration of justice. That is the biggest challenge we are facing now and also a reason our present activities are also focused on the empowerment of LGBT persons and implementation of the new laws. Only implementation can show the efficiency of certain anti-discrimination provisions.

Positive shifts in the status of the human rights of sexual minorities in the Republic of Croatia in 2006 are the most evident from the continuous active role of the Office of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality and the introduction of the definition of hate crimes (the definition explicitly includes sexual orientation) as a result of the advocacy of our Team for Legal Changes.

We found the most serious violation of human rights of sexual minorities in homophobic hate speech by the Croatian Government at the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights and homophobic hate speech by MPs at the session of the Croatian Parliament during the debate on the Registered Partnership Bill.

Also in the past year violations of children’s rights continued in the context of their education in schools since there was no sex education or education on gender equality. On the contrary, schoolbooks mostly depict discriminatory practices and stereotypes, which is contrary to Croatia’s obligations as a signatory of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

The new Ombudswoman for Children, appointed this year, gave homophobic interviews, stating that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt and raise children.

Human rights violations against sexual and gender minorities perpetrated by police officers and during the organisation of the Zagreb Pride event also continued.

However, the positive trend in breakthroughs in reporting violence and discrimination to our Team and the police continued. More and more people have the courage to report homophobic/biphobic/transphobic hate crimes after all.

Summary of the 2006 Report

Positive shifts in the status of the human rights of sexual and gender minorities in 2006 in Croatia were reflected in the constant active role of the Office of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality and the introduction of the definition of hate crimes into the Croatian Criminal Code (the definition includes criminal offences motivated by the sexual orientation of the injured party). The definition was implemented on the initiative of the Team for Legal Changes of Iskorak and Kontra, which was supported by the Women’s Network of Croatia and the Serbian Democratic Forum.

A positive trend is also visible in the increasing amount of reporting of violence and discrimination against sexual and gender minorities. More and more people are prepared to report homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crimes. On-line counselling of the Team for Legal Changes received a total of 27 questions. Of those 10 questions were in relation to punishable behaviour. The Team for Legal Changes has in the last year worked on 22 cases, including 16 cases of punishable acts motivated by the sexual orientation of the injured party.

The most serious violation of the human rights of sexual and gender minorities in 2006 was committed at the session of the Committee for Human Rights and the session of the Croatian Parliament during debates on the Registered Partnership Bill. Representatives of the Government and members of Parliament used hate speech against sexual minorities while addressing their colleagues and the Croatian public. For example, Mr Niko Rebić from the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) stated at the session of the Committee for Human Rights of the Croatian Parliament that, “The main message of the Bible on this subject is Sodom and Gomorra. AIDS is one of the signs of what happens in those same-sex unions.” This statement, as well as many others, were reported by the media and therefore had the effect of stigmatizing same sex couples and people who are living with HIV/AIDS.

The newly appointed Ombudswoman for Children also used hate speech against sexual minorities in one of the very first interviews she gave to the daily newspapers after she was appointed to this position. In this case hate speech was directed against same-sex couples and children whose parents live in same-sex unions. This is highly alarming, considering the fact that the duty of the Ombudswoman is to protect the rights of children whose parents are members of minorities.

Police officers continued to violate the human rights of sexual and gender minorities while handling cases of discrimination and violence and during organization of the Zagreb Pride event.


1. Legislation

National Policy on Gender Equality

On 13th October 2006 the Croatian Parliament adopted the National Policy on Gender Equality 2006-2010, created by the Government Office for Gender Equality.

The National Policy for Gender Equality was envisioned (introductory note of the Policy) as a strategic document of the Republic of Croatia created with the aim of eliminating discrimination against women and establishing real equality of the sexes through implementation of a policy of equal opportunities for the period 2006-2010.

At the request of the Team for Legal Changes of Iskorak and Kontra and the Women’s Network of Croatia, the following provisions were implemented into the Policy:

• In Chapter 3 “Commitments in the process of joining the European Union”, the following legal ground in the field of equal opportunities is included: fighting discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.
• The strategic framework for implementation of the Policy on Gender Equality and the action plan contained a chapter on “Improvement of ways to combat and eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation”. This chapter contained the following provisions:

1.5.1. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Internal Affairs will conduct research with the aim of analysing judicial practice and police conduct while dealing with criminal offences motivated by the sexual orientation of the injured party. Deadline for the implementation of this activity: 2007.

1.5.2. Representatives of organizations for equality of sexual and gender minorities will be included in working bodies for adoption of laws, programmes and strategies, which are relevant to the rights of sexual minorities. Implementing body: competent bodies of the State administration, Government of the Republic of Croatia. Deadline for implementation: 2007-2010.

However, we also have to report that unfortunately most of our complaints and proposals to the Government Office for Gender Equality were not included into the National Policy on Gender Equality. This kind of conduct shows selective implementation of the Gender Equality Act by the Government Office for Gender Equality.

Namely, to clarify the statements from the previous paragraph we quote the amendments that the Women’s Network of Croatia sent to the Office for Gender Equality on our behalf:

IV. Improvement of the position of women, members of sexual minorities

The major aim of this programme chapter is combating and eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation through the implementation of existing legal solutions and proposing new measures for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

Lesbians, as women of different sexual orientation, are affected by specific forms of discrimination. The problem of discrimination against women who are members of minorities is not sufficiently recognized by the public and state authorities.

The majority of rights available to different-sex married and cohabiting partners is not available to same-sex partners. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation and same-sex union, which is contrary to provisions of the Gender Equality Act and Same-sex Civil Unions Act. One of the aims of this programme chapter is the elimination of discrimination against same-sex couples in Croatian legislation.

1. The Ministry of the Family, War Veterans, and Intergenerational Solidarity will propose a bill on changes to the Same-sex Unions Act.
Implementation deadline: 2007

2. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior will make an analysis of police conduct and judicial practice in regards to criminal offences motivated by the sexual orientation of injured parties.
Implementation deadline: 2007

3. The Justice Academy, the Police Academy, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior will conduct workshops with the aim of systematic education of police officers, judges and state attorneys regarding cases related to discrimination and violence against sexual minorities. The aim of this provision is to enhance legal protection and help for victims of violence and discrimination.
Implementation deadline: 2007 and continuing thereafter

4. The Ministry of Education, Science and Sport will pay special attention to sensitivity to the rights of sexual minorities during the creation of the schoolbooks standard. The Ministry will create a special Instruction for the Assessment of the Quality of Schoolbooks from the perspective of the rights of sexual minorities.
Implementation deadline: 2007

5. The Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, the Institute for Education, the Office of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality and the Agency for Vocational Education will create an expert working group for creation of a programme of education of those responsible for educational activities.
Implementation deadline: 2007

6. The Ministry of Science, Education and Sport will include experts from the field of the human rights of sexual and gender minorities in expert committees for the creation of regulations and other documents under jurisdiction of the Ministry (educational plans and programmes, Regulation on Self Assessment, Codex on Ethics).
Implementation deadline: 2006/2007

7. The Government will include experts from the field of the human rights of sexual and gender minorities in working groups for the creation and adoption of laws, programmes, and strategies related to rights of sexual and gender minorities.
Implementation deadline: 2007 and continuing thereafter

It is clear by comparing the proposal of the Team for Legal Changes and the Women’s Network with the Policy adopted by the Government that although seven activities along with explanations were proposed to the Office for Gender Equality, it accepted only two.
Lesbians, bisexual and transgender women are especially exposed to violence and discrimination, due to their status of belonging to a doubly discriminated group. The Office for Gender Equality according to the Gender Equality Act has the responsibility to educate the public and to send a clear message that this situation is unacceptable. By neglecting to implement a description of the situation and the need to protect the rights of sexual and gender minorities, the office failed in this responsibility.
The Same-sex Unions Act provides same-sex couples with only two rights: the right to joint property and to support by a partner. It does not provide same-sex partners with other rights and responsibilities available to different-sex partners through the institutions of marriage and common law marriage. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation and same-sex union, so the Act is contrary to both itself (Article 21 of the Same-sex Civil Unions Act prohibits discrimination based on same-sex union and sexual orientation) and to the Gender Equality Act. The Office for Gender Equality refused to point to the discriminatory status of same-sex couples and refused to take the initiative to change that condition. It showed that it also acts in a discriminatory manner in relation to sexual and gender minorities.

Misconduct of police officers, while dealing with cases of discrimination and violence against sexual and gender minorities, as well as during organization of the Zagreb Pride event was one of the most important points of all previous reports on the status of human rights of sexual minorities in Croatia and one of the biggest problems for the Croatian LGBT community today. The Gender Equality Act and all other anti-discrimination acts will remain dead letters if victims of discrimination and violence cannot have confidence in the police and the justice system while reporting criminal offences. That is especially the case if there is a significant possibility that police officers will also act in discriminatory manner. In spite of all that, the Office for Gender Equality deliberately failed to deal with this important issue of discriminatory behaviour towards sexual and gender minorities.

In the Croatian educational system, sexual rights do not exist in Croatian schools as a mandatory subject and there is no education on human rights. It is of great concern to us that the Office for Gender Equality does not recognise this problem as well.

The Policy itself in the majority of cases is not explicit about time limits or commitments for relevant institutions regarding certain activities that should improve the position of women and sexual minorities in Croatian society. The ambiguous definitions and postponed activities contained in this Policy point to the fact that solving the problem of unequal treatment of women and sexual minorities has been put off for the future.

Registered Partnership Bill

The Same-sex Civil Unions Act passed in 2003 recognized only two rights to same-sex couples: the right to joint property and the right to support by a partner. There is an anti-discrimination provision that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or same-sex civil union.

Over the past three years we have noticed a lack of implementation of the Same-sex Civil Unions Act (which prohibits discrimination against same-sex partners) and Gender Equality Act in particular cases in the procedure of voting on laws by the Government. This problem appears when a certain law which regulates relations between members of the family in that aspect includes married partners and sometimes common law partners, but never same-sex partners. This was the case with Protection of Patients Act (2004) and Public Servants Act (2005). Same-sex couples are denied most of the rights derived from the institution of marriage, as well as common law marriage, and are therefore still seriously discriminated against within the Croatian legal system.

On 15th June 2005 we presented for the first time to the public a registered partnership bill, at a round table discussion held at the European House in Zagreb. The bill was supposed to serve the purpose of expanding the rights of same-sex partners to include all rights enjoyed by married partners, except the right to adopt a child. The bill had support from the start from MPs from the Liberal Party, Social Democratic Party and Croatian Social Liberal Party.

In September 2005, MPs Šime Lučin (Social Democratic Party) and Ivo Banac (Liberal Party) put forward into parliamentary procedure the Registered Partnership Bill. The media reported with great interest on these events.

On 8th November 2005 we organized a round table discussion in the Croatian Parliament in cooperation with the Parliamentary Committee for Gender Equality and Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities. We presented the bill and opened the discussion. MPs from different parties and members of parliamentary committees were present at the discussion. The event was well represented in the media. The Croatian Democratic Union expressed its official opposition to the Registered Partnership Bill at this discussion. The media reported on the discussion.

On 15th February 2006 the Parliamentary Committee on Gender Equality discussed the Registered Partnership Bill. Representatives of the Team for Legal Changes were present at the discussion and gave its recommendation to MPs Šime Lucin and Ivo Banac to use the newly adopted Resolution on Homophobia in Europe as a part of its argumentation in favour of adoption of the Bill. The Committee adopted the Bill and recommended the Croatian Parliament to adopt it as well.

The next day the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights discussed the Bill. This Committee consisted of a majority of MPs from the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ). We guess that they were informed in the meantime that the Resolution on Homophobia in Europe does not prescribe any sanctions on this subject, and thus they voted against the adoption of the Bill. Some of the MPs from the HDZ used homophobic hate speech as an argument against the bill. Niko Rebić (HDZ) said: “The main message from the Bible on the subject of homosexuality is that it is Sodom and Gomorra.” Further on he said: “AIDS is one of the signs of what happens in same-sex partnerships.” The media reported on this event.

The government did not support the Partnership Bill in Parliament. There was a great amount of hate speech during the debates in Parliament, mostly from representatives of the leading HDZ party. Lucija Čikeš (HDZ) said: “The whole Universe is heterosexual, from the fly to the elephant, from atoms to planets. If it was not so, the Sun would not rotate around the earth, it would fall down and we would all burn!”
Some MPs from the leading party who were a little bit more intelligent did not use hate speech as a part of their argumentation against the Registered Partnership Bill. They mostly said that the Bill is too similar to the Family Act, and that same-sex partners are not a family. They claimed that they would support the proposal if it were written in a form of amendments to the Same-sex Civil Unions Act. That is the reason we are starting a new campaign for a proposal of amendments to the Same-sex Civil Unions Act, containing the same rights as in the previous proposal. We believe that it is necessary to attract as much of the public’s attention as possible to this subject and also to establish whether the previous proposal was rejected because of a technicality, or in fact because of the lack of will of the leading party to protect the human rights of same sex couples.

Criminal Code – implemented definition of hate crimes

The Team for Legal Changes of Kontra and Iskorak conducted an analysis of the Croatian Criminal Code regarding crimes motivated by the perpetuator’s hatred towards certain characteristics of the victim.

Although we primarily dealt with the problem of sexual and gender minorities, we estimated that it is necessary to include protection of other minorities in the context of the definition of hate crimes.

Analysis of the Criminal Code showed that Croatian legislation does not recognize the term “hate crime” as such, but certain crimes can be qualified as motivated by hatred. That is the case with the crime of aggravated murder under Article 91 paragraph 6 of the Criminal Code, which is described as a crime motivated by “especially base motive”. According to the interpretation of legal experts hatred is considered to be an especially base motive (Bačić and Pavlović, 2004 “Comments on the Criminal Code”). However, from available judicial practice we did not find cases that include this interpretation by the courts. Especially base motive was most commonly found in judicial practice in connection with the murder of a person motivated by marital infidelity (A.Garačić, 2001, “Criminal Code in Judicial Practice”).

The offence of violation of the equality of citizens under Article 174 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code had the same substance as the offence of racial or other discrimination under Article 106 paragraph 1, the difference being in the use of different legislation – Article 106 paragraph 1 is implemented in connection with national legislation and Article 174 paragraph 1 is implemented in connection with international legislation.

Violation of the equality of citizens and racial or other discrimination include deprivation of fundamental rights and freedoms of a person, recognized by national or international legislation, motivated by a certain characteristic (gender, race, skin colour, religion, nationality, sexual orientation and other characteristics) of a victim. Article 174 paragraph 3 provides sanctions for hate speech. The OSCE recognized crimes under Article 174 as specific “hate crimes” in its report (“Combating Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: An Overview of Statistics, Legislation and National Initiatives”). Although Croatian criminal legislation did not recognize the term “hate crime”, the international community in general gave a positive evaluation of the position of Croatia in relation to this kind of crime.

However, the Team for Legal Changes took the stand that the criminalisation of discriminatory behaviour in the context of the criminal law in Croatia does not include other crimes, such as threats, violent behaviour, slander, insult, bodily injury, serious bodily injury, rape and other crimes against sexual freedom, as well as other criminal offences. Courts recognize those crimes as ordinary criminal offences, without considering that they were motivated by hatred. They do not give significance to the greater social danger posed by crimes motivated by hatred towards certain social groups or the personal characteristics of the victim.

Another reason why Article 174 paragraph 1 has almost never been implemented is because it was necessary for the courts to analyze international documents in order to implement the Article, and courts in Croatia are very unwilling to set precedents. In most cases when a person was attacked because of her or his national origin (especially members of the Serbian and Roma minorities) or sexual orientation, the police did not recognize these attacks as crimes at all (in the Croatian Criminal Code there exists a criminal offence of violent behaviour, defined by Article 331 of the Criminal Code), but as misdemeanours of violation of public peace and order. The Team for Legal Changes during its campaign to introduce a definition of hate crimes into Croatian legislation demanded from the state authorities a list of criminal offences motivated by hatred towards a certain social group or characteristic of a victim for the past year. The Ministry of the Interior produced a document in which it was stated that there were three such crimes in the past year defined as criminal offences of racial or other discrimination. In fact, these were cases of discrimination at the workplace and not other criminal offences that were recognized as hate crimes. According to the information of the Serbian Democratic Forum, 48 hate crimes (violent attacks and murders) against the Serbian minority were reported that year.

At the end of October 2005, additionally motivated by the attack on the gay couple in Gajnice (information on this case are included in our 2005 Annual Report on the Status of Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities), the Team for Legal Changes announced for the first time the beginning of an advocacy campaign for the introduction of a definition of hate crimes into Croatian legislation (please find press clipping on this subject as a part of this report). We claimed that crimes motivated by hatred should be characterized as aggravated crimes and more severely punished than non-bias crimes.

The initiative of the Team for Legal Changes followed the tendency of the Ministry of Justice to introduce higher penalties for certain crimes, and proposals of changes to the Criminal Code regarding hate crimes were harmonized with sanctions foreseen by the Government in its proposal.

We created three proposals of changes to the Criminal Code and presented them at a round table discussion with representatives of the Government, relevant ministries, the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality and representatives of the courts on 5th December 2005 at the European House (please find press clipping on the subject as a part of this report).

The above three proposals basically contained two different approaches. The first was to add a definition of “hate crime” into Article 89 of the Criminal Code, and to qualify crimes motivated by hatred as more severe and to increase penalties in such cases by one degree (for example, if a minimal penalty for basic crime is three months, it will be six months for a qualified (hate) crime). Another approach is to add a definition of “hate crime” into Article 89 of the Criminal Code, and to take this motive into consideration as an aggravating circumstance while sentencing a perpetuator.

The Government did not show any interest in introducing a definition of hate crimes into the Croatian Criminal Code at first. All Government representatives at the above round table discussion claimed that the existing legislation was sufficient for combating hate crimes and that we need to educate judges on using existing legislation.

The Women’s Network of Croatia, the Serbian Democratic Forum and the Centre for Peace Studies supported the advocacy efforts of the Team for Legal Changes to introduce hate crimes into the Croatian Criminal Code.

On 23rd November 2005 the Team for Legal Changes held a meeting with representatives of the OSCE/ODIHR, which started in cooperation with the Croatian Government a project of education of the police, public attorney’s offices and courts on the recognition and treatment of the hate crimes. We presented the lack of a legal framework for hate crimes and established cooperation with the OSCE. At the recommendation of the OSCE, the Team for Legal Changes cooperated on the creation of the module for education of the police officers. That was agreed upon at a meeting on 17th February 2006.

In March 2005 people were attacked by a group of men at a gay party organized by Iskorak at the Santos club in the centre of Zagreb. The attack happened at around 3am when most of the participants from the party were going home. The Team for Legal Changes collected information from victims and witnesses and accompanied them to the police station to give their testimonies. We gave all the information we collected to the police in written form. The police at first wanted to qualify this attack as a misdemeanour of violation of public peace and order. After media pressure from the Team for Legal Changes and pressure from the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality the police finally qualified it as a crime of violent behaviour, but not as racial or other discrimination. The Police Department of Zagreb stated in its public announcement that this was an ordinary bar fight. On 10th March 2006 the Team for Legal Changes in cooperation with Women’s Network Croatia held a press conference in front of the public attorney’s office while handing in a complaint that this crime should be additionally qualified as racial or other discrimination. Representatives of the Team for Legal Changes used this case to make the point in public of why it is necessary to introduce a clear definition of hate crimes into the Croatian Criminal Code.

As a result of this, representatives of the Team for Legal Changes were invited to the session of a Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights when a bill on amendments to the Criminal Code was discussed. We could only advocate amendments to Articles 89 and 91 of the Criminal Code, as they were only ones discussed in Parliament. We built our case mostly on examples of attacks and murders of members of the Serbian national minority at that point and in this way got the support of MPs who are representatives of national minorities and the support of the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights. We believe that our proposal to introduce a definition of hate crimes into Article 89 of the Criminal Code was accepted by Parliament because of perceived international pressure (while advocating we always put emphasis on EU, OSCE) and support from representatives of national minorities in the Parliament.

Now there is a definition of a “hate crime” in Article 89 of the Criminal Code:

“Hate crime is any criminal offence, described in this Act that is motivated by hate against the victim due to his/her race, skin colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social origin, property, birth, education, social status, age, medical status, or other characteristics.”

There is no specific recognition of gender identity. Gender identity, can be however interpreted inside the term “other characteristics”. Also, if a hate crime is committed because a person was perceived to be gay (due to his/her gender expression) it can be defined by the court as a hate crime based on a person’s perceived sexual orientation.

This put an obligation on the police and courts to document whether the criminal offence was motivated by hatred. However, judges have the discretionary right to decide whether to increase the penalty due to that fact or not.

We also successfully advocated an amendment to Article 91 of the Criminal Code which relates to aggravated murder. It now defines murder motivated by hatred as aggravated murder and prescribes greater penalties for offenders in comparison to regular murder.

Criminal Code - “Hate speech”

Article 174 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code provides sanctions for the criminal offence of racial or other discrimination in relation to extolling ideas of superiority based on a certain characteristic or group affiliation of an individual, with the aim of spreading hatred. This article provides sanctions for “hate speech”.

Cases of the Team for Legal Changes regarding “hate speech”

The Kontra and Iskorak associations (NGOs registered with the state authorities) are authorized according to the Criminal Proceedings Act, to initiate criminal proceedings at the State Attorney’s offices for crimes that are officially persecuted.

When we are dealing with criminal offences under Article 174 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code, our associations have the official status of injured party as a plaintiff. In reality the associations are not directly damaged by this criminal offence - the persecution is initiated with the aim of maintaining public order.

The Team for Legal Changes has submitted to the Public Attorney’s Office in last two years five initiations of criminal proceedings. Three were rejected as unjustified, and we are waiting for the decision on the last one. We later formulated all the rejected initiations as bills of indictment and referred them to competent courts. Proceedings are in progress.

From our experience with these cases we would like to especially emphasize that all Public Attorney’s offices considered that the existence of direct intent is crucial for the realization of this criminal offence, and that this interpretation is truly consistent with the formulation from Article 174 paragraph 3.

We can only conclude that from the point of view of Public Attorney’s offices the existence of this criminal offence cannot be proved unless the suspect literally admits that he had the intention of spreading hatred. In all cases perpetuators claimed that they did not intend to spread hatred, and because of that the criminal proceedings were stopped.

For other criminal offences under the Criminal Code intent can be proved, even if the suspect does not admit to it. We believe that the courts should try to develop methods of proving culpability for criminal offences under Article 174 paragraph 3. On the other hand, practice could also demonstrate that it is not possible to establish alternative methods of proving this criminal offence, and in that case changes to Article 174 paragraph 3 will be needed. Part of our future advocacy activities is also continuing to monitor these cases and to advocate for these changes.

We would like to emphasize that these cases are the first ones since Article 174 paragraph 3 came into force. Criticism directed against homosexuality or homosexual people is beyond the frame of civil communication, and unfortunately is a more common occurrence than criticism of other social groups. Society does not condemn this kind of attack, and it might even tacitly support it. Public persons are aware that it is not right to offend other people in general, but they are not aware that it is not right to offend people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Cases that the Team for Legal Changes had to deal with have shown how far individuals can go in crossing the limits of basic cultural behaviour in society. Implementation of sanctions for hate speech contributes to the general purpose of punishment as a specific kind of social corrective. The Team for Legal Changes demanded a custodial sentence for perpetuators in all the cases, claiming that this is the appropriate penalty for this criminal offence (although according to the law the court can pronounce a non-suspended sentence from three months up to three years in duration). We believe that the criminal sentencing must affect the perpetuator in a preventive manner and it has to be educative for the population in general, so having in mind the freedom of opinion and expression we consider this an appropriate sanction.

Sports Act

The text of the Sports Bill proposed in May 2006 by the Croatian Government stated: “Sports have to be equally accessible to all people, regardless of age, sex, religion, nationality, social status, political or other beliefs and backgrounds.”

The provision, however, lacked an explicit mention of equal access in view of sexual orientation, as a separate identity that needs protection from discrimination in sports.

The Team for Legal Changes assumed that the authors of the Act, due to ignorance or misunderstanding, listed sexual orientation under the wider category of “other beliefs and backgrounds”, which is unacceptable, having in mind that sexual orientation, is not a matter of belief.

We reacted by sending a public reaction to the media and a request to the Parliamentary Committee for Gender Equality to propose an amendment to include sexual orientation into the above mentioned provision of the Sports Bill.

On 12th June 2006 we received a memo from the Parliamentary Committee for Gender Equality with the notification that the Croatian Parliament adopted the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Committee for Gender Equality at our suggestion regarding the Sports Bill.


2. Cooperation With State Institutions and Bodies


Croatian Government
The Government of the Republic of Croatia is a body which exercises executive powers in conformity with the Constitution and law; its internal organization, operational procedures and decision-making processes are defined by the Government of the Republic of Croatia Act and the Rules of Procedure of the Government.
The Government passes decrees, introduces legislation, proposes the state budget and enforces laws and other regulations enacted by the Croatian Parliament. Within the scope of its powers, the Government also passes decrees, administrative acts and orders on the appointment and dismissal of appointed officials and civil servants. The Government decides in cases of conflict of jurisdiction between government institutions, gives answers to representatives’ questions, prepares proposals of laws and other regulations, gives opinions on laws and other regulations and adopts strategies of economic and social development.
The Government consists of the Prime Minister, one or more Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers.
The Government answers to the Croatian Parliament. The Prime Minister and the members of the Government are jointly responsible for decisions passed by the Government and individually responsible for their respective portfolios.
Pursuant to the decision of the Croatian Parliament which expressed confidence in the Government of the Republic of Croatia, the President of the Republic issues an order appointing the Prime Minister, countersigned by the Speaker of the Croatian Parliament; the order appointing the members of the Government is issued by the Prime Minister and countersigned by the Speaker of the Croatian Parliament.
Working bodies of the Government:
For the purpose of providing proposals, opinions and expert expositions on issues within its purview, the Government forms its permanent working bodies; it may also form ad-hoc working groups by virtue of a special decision.
The Croatian Government consists mainly of members of the rightist Croatian Democratic Union and it represents conservative views. This has been proved by a number of cases during its current mandate.

In the Programme of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for the 2003-2007 Mandate, the Croatian Government places gender equality issues under the chapter on the family and in that way puts the rights of women into the context of protection of the family. By doing this, the Croatian Government promotes traditional gender roles in which the only role of women is to serve the family and raise children. The same paragraph prescribes that maternity leave (not parental leave) should be extended up to 3 years, which has already come into force with the new Labour Act and such practice results in discrimination against women in the labour market. The programme does not contain any actions to combat discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, as well as discrimination on any other ground except national identity.

The Government has intentionally failed to implement the Same-sex Partnership Act while creating and introducing new legislation on each single occasion and has constantly violated the prohibition of discrimination based on same-sex partnership, regulated by Article 21 of the Act. Our amendments to draft acts were not included and the Government failed to provide same-sex partners with the same rights as heterosexual married and common law partners.

After the Registered Partnership Bill (which should prescribe rights for same-sex partners that are available to different-sex married partners) was introduced to the public, the Government issued its opinion in which it declared that it recommends the Croatian Parliament not to adopt this bill. The Government based its opinion on the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman in the Family Act and it deliberately misinterpreted provisions from international documents that regulate protection of family life and the right to marriage. Knowing that the Same-sex Partnership Act provide almost no rights to same-sex partners, the Government stated in its opinion that the Family Act regulates this area sufficiently, and is in accordance with international civilization standards.

At the session of the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights at which the Registered Partnership Bill was discussed, representatives of the Government, Croatian Democratic Union and the Party of the Right gave extremely homophobic arguments for their opinion.

The National Programme for Protection and Promotion of Human Rights for 2005 to 2008, which prescribes actions for protection of rights of sexual minorities, was created by the Government Office for Human Rights.

Our conclusion from all of this is that the Croatian Government produces general documents that prescribe the protection of human rights, mainly with the aim of satisfying international institutions, but it does not have any real intention of acting in this direction or producing legislation that would ensure equal treatment of same-sex couples. The Government only reacts well to international pressure, which should accordingly be used as much as possible.

Croatian Parliament
The Croatian Parliament has been a democratic, multiparty legislature since 1990. According to the 1990 Constitution, the Croatian Parliament may have a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 160 members, who are elected directly by secret ballot based on universal suffrage for a term of four years.
The Croatian Parliament convenes regular sessions twice annually: the first session runs between 15th January and 15th July, while the second session runs from 15th September to 15th December.

The Croatian Parliament can also hold extraordinary sessions at the request of the Croatian President, the Government or a majority of parliamentary deputies. Extraordinary sessions may be convened by the Speaker of the Croatian Parliament after obtaining the prior opinion of the clubs of parliamentary parties.

Parliament’s internal structure and operating methods are regulated by its Standing Orders, which are passed by a majority vote of all deputies.

The Croatian Parliament decides on the enactment and amendment of the Constitution, enacts laws and the national budget, declares war and proclaims peace, passes declarations that express the policies of the Croatian Parliament, adopts the national security and defence strategy for the Republic of Croatia, conducts civilian oversight of the armed forces and security services of the Republic of Croatia, decides on changes to the borders of the Republic of Croatia, calls referendums, and pursuant to the Constitution elects, appoints and dismisses — and oversees the work of — the Croatian Government and other bodies vested with public authority accountable to the Croatian Parliament. Parliament also grants amnesty in cases of criminal acts and engages in other activities as stipulated by the Constitution.

The Croatian Parliament is authorised to make decisions if a majority of its members are present at sessions, except in cases specified otherwise by the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia or the Standing Orders.

Sessions of the Croatian Parliament are public. Besides plenary sessions, the work of the Croatian Parliament is also carried out by its working bodies, which are established in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Croatian Parliament.

The Croatian Parliament has a Speaker and one or several Deputy Speakers; according to the Standing Orders there can be from two to five deputy speakers. The Speaker and Deputy Speakers form the Presidency of Parliament. The Presidency accepts patronage on behalf of Parliament or its working bodies, confirms draft regulations on the public work of the Parliament and its working bodies, confirms draft decisions on the Parliamentary Staff Service, provides prior opinions on draft rules on the internal order of the Parliamentary Staff Service and performs other tasks stipulated by the Standing Orders. The Presidency of Parliament, together with the chairmen of the parliamentary party clubs, deliberates on matters of importance to Parliament’s work, encourages the inclusion of specific items on the agenda of Parliament and discusses other matters pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Orders.

Although we had good individual cooperation with members of the Parliament who support the rights of sexual and gender minorities and occasional cooperation with parliamentary committees, the Croatian Parliament is at its core homophobic. That was proved at the discussion on the Registered Partnership Bill (mostly by homophobic statements of the members of the HDZ).

Once more we quote the statement of Lucija Čikeš who (we assume while sane) stated in the Croatian Parliament the following: “The whole Universe is heterosexual, from the atom and the smallest particle, from the fly to the elephant. According to the laws of physics, equal charges repel each other and opposite charges attract each other. If equal charges started to attract each other, all would collapse and disappear. The Moon would not rotate around the Earth; it would fall. The Earth would not rotate around the Sun; it would fall and burn or wander off and freeze.”

Ombudswoman for Gender Equality

The Ombudswoman for Gender Equality is appointed and dismissed from her duty by the Croatian Parliament, which in these cases acts on the recommendation of the Croatian Government.

The Ombudswoman for Gender Equality monitors the implementation of the Gender Equality Act, effective 30th July 2003 and other regulations concerning gender equality.
The Gender Equality Act defines and regulates protection from discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, and marital status, as well as equal opportunity mechanisms.
Article 6 of the Gender Equality Act

(1) Discrimination on the grounds of sex (hereinafter: discrimination) is every normative or real, direct or indirect differentiation, exclusion or limitation based on sex, which hinders or denies equal recognition, exercise or achievement of the human rights of women and men in the political, educational, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other sphere of life.

(2) Discrimination on the grounds of marital or family status and sexual orientation is prohibited.

(3) Inducing another person to discrimination is considered discrimination as defined by this Act. (Article 6 of the Gender Equality Act)

We established good cooperation with the Office of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality. We cooperated with the Office on cases of hate crimes against sexual and gender minorities and the Ombudswoman participated in public events organized by our team, aimed at education on sexual minorities’ rights.

She actively participated in public discussion on sexual education at schools in Croatia and sent a note to the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport saying: “In the present day conditions, having in mind in particular the harmonization of the Croatian legislation with the European Union standards, it is unacceptable to promote a life in family with both biological parents as the only desirable family model, because our life experience shows that it is legitimate to live with only one biological parent as well as without any biological parent and modern European society has legitimized and accepted families with same-sex parents.” She stressed that the implementation of Programme Teen STAR violated Article 6 of the Gender Equality Act and Section 21 of the Act on Same-sex Partnership.

Some of the activities of the Office of the Gender Equality Ombudswoman were presented on the Office’s web page (www.prs.hr). All annual reports issued by the Ombudswoman’s office are also published on the web page. Our suggestion was that activities of the Ombudswoman’s office be presented on the web page in their entirety.

Since the Ombudswoman’s office is in charge of addressing issues concerning the protection of the human rights of sexual minorities, additional resources should be allocated to the Office, both in respect of money and human resources. The Office should employ persons who would address only human rights violations against sexual minorities.
Our experience so far has shown that the Office has reacted to certain issues with a delay. On the other hand, the Office’s staff has shown a great deal of will to discuss all issues of our interest and to exchange information.
It is desirable that the Office be more present in media coverage of human rights violations of sexual minorities.
Ombudsman for Children
According to the Ombudsman for Children Act (published in the Official Gazette 96/2003), the Republic of Croatia has formed a special supervisory body as an institution “sui generis”, the Ombudsman for Children, which protects, monitors and promotes the rights and interests of children on the basis of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, international treaties and laws.
The Ombudsman for Children and his/her deputies must not be a member of any political party nor take part in political activities. They are appointed to and dismissed from duty by the Croatian National Parliament on the recommendation of the Government of the Republic of Croatia. They are high-ranking officials of the Republic of Croatia, appointed for a period of eight years and can be reappointed.

The Ombudsman for Children:
- monitors the coordination of laws and other regulations in the Republic of Croatia, concerned with the protection of the rights and interests of children, with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other international documents concerned with the protection of the rights and interests of children; the fulfilment of the obligations of the Republic of Croatia arising from the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international documents concerned with the protection of the rights and interests of children; the implementation of all regulations concerned with the protection of the rights and interests of children; and the violation of individual rights of children and studies general occurrences and manners of violation of the rights and interests of children,

- makes efforts for the protection and promotion of the rights and interests of disabled children; proposes the undertaking of measures intended for the creation of a coherent system of protection and promotion of the rights and interests of children and for the prevention of harmful activities jeopardizing the rights and interests of children,

- informs the public on the state of children’s rights; informs and advises children on the manner of the realization and protection of their rights and interests; cooperates with children; encourages children to declare themselves and respects their opinions; initiates and participates in public activities oriented towards improvement of the position of children; and proposes measures for the enhancement of the influence of children in society,
- can take part in the procedure of the preparation of draft proposals of regulations concerned with the rights of children or those regulating important issues for children, and may give impetus for the adoption or change of the laws and other regulations concerned with the rights and protection of children.
The Ombudsman for Children is authorized to warn, give proposals and recommendations for the promotion and protection of children’s rights and interests. State administration bodies, local and regional administration units, as well as corporate and natural persons, have the obligation to cooperate with the Ombudsman for Children and submit reports upon his/her demand, give answers to his/her inquiries, and report immediately, at latest within 15 days, to the Ombudsman for Children on performed activities concerning his/her warning, proposal or recommendation.
Should the bodies and corporate persons fail to act in accordance with his/her demand within prescribed period of time, the Ombudsman for Children will inform the body in charge of monitoring their work about it.
The Ombudsman for Children is granted access and insight into all data, information and files concerned with the rights and protection of children, disregarding their level of secrecy, and is entitled to the right to enter premises and receive insights into the manner of the performance of care for children who are placed or are temporarily, or permanently, accommodated in government institutions, natural and legal persons, religious communities and other legal entities on the basis of specific regulations.
The Ombudsman for Children is an independent body and cannot be called to account, put into custody or be punished for the expression of an opinion or performed activities within the competence of his/her work, except in case of committing a violation of law which in its extent is equal to a criminal offence.

The Ombudsman for Children and his/her deputies will be dismissed from duty before the expiration of the appointed mandate at their own demand, or in case of the loss of Croatian citizenship, permanent loss of the ability to performs their duties, valid sentence for a criminal offence, non-acceptance of the annual report on work performed, or illegal, untimely or unprofessional performance of their duty.

The Ombudsman for Children submits an annual report on his work to the Croatian Parliament, but is also has the right to submit special reports to the Croatian Parliament in cases in case when he/she considers it to be necessary, with the goal of implementing important measures for the protection of the rights and interests of children.
The Ombudsman for Children submitted the first annual report for the period from 25th September 2003 to and 31st December 2003, in March 2004, which was accepted by the Croatian Parliament.
Expert and administrative work for the Ombudsman for Children is performed at the Office of the Ombudsman for Children, situated in Zagreb, Andrije Hebranga Street 4/1.
Material resources for the work of the Ombudsman for Children, his/her Deputies and expert services department are to be secured from the State Budget of the Republic of Croatia.

The Office of Ombudsman for Children comprises of an Expert Services Department and General Services Department, with a total specified number of 9 civil servants.

Currently there are 6 employees with university degrees performing professional counselling (two lawyers, a social worker, a professor of psychology and a special teacher), and 3 employees with completed secondary education performing technical administration and accounting.
We established good cooperation with Ljubica Matijević Vrsaljko, who was the first person appointed to that position. Because of this the Office of the Ombudsman for Children reacted positively to our note concerning the “Programme of Catholic Religious Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools in Croatia” and demanded that the Programme be harmonised with positive legislation in Croatia and Convention on the Rights of a Child. Ms Matijević Vrsaljko also actively participated in the public debate on the Teen STAR Programme and model of sexual education at schools in Croatia. She sent her recommendations to the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport where she confirmed our observations and pointed out that the Teen STAR Programme was in contradiction not only with Croatian legislation but also with the Convention on the Rights of a Child. She demanded that the implementation of that Programme be made conditional on its harmonization with the domestic legislation and the said Convention.

Unfortunately, after the resignation of Ms Ljubica Matijević Vrsaljko from the position of Ombudswoman for Children in October 2005, a more conservative candidate was elected to the position in March 2006. Namely, although the Government does not appoint or dismiss ombudspersons, only the Government proposes candidates for this position. The first women who were elected for positions of Ombudswoman for Gender Equality and Ombudswoman for Children came from NGO backgrounds and were willing to take on more controversial subjects such as sexual education in schools and the Registered Partnership Act. We believe that their work did not suit Government interests and because of this when a new person was supposed to be elected for the position of the Ombudswoman for Children, the Government proposed only persons who were known to have more conservative beliefs.

Ms Mila Jelavić, the new Ombudswoman for Children, made a homophobic statement in an interview to a daily newspaper, only a week after she was elected to this position.

We wrote a public statement in which we appealed to the Croatian Parliament, especially the Committee for Human Rights and Committee for Gender Equality to re-examine their decision to appoint Ms Mila Jelavić to the position of Ombudswoman for Children. We expressed our concerns regarding the competence of Ms Jelavić to protect the rights of children whose parents live in same-sex partnerships, as well as children whose parents are members of other minorities. Unfortunately, as far as we know, the relevant institutions did not undertake any measures to re-examine their decision and protect the rights of children whose parents are members of minorities.

The Office of the Ombudswoman for Children is completely passive regarding the case of the implementation of programmes of sexual education into Croatian educational system. The Office did not publicly react even once regarding this case, and we do not know if it did anything at all regarding this case.

Also, the Office did not send an official response to the Team for Legal Changes regarding cases related to criminal offences against minors.

Government Office for Gender Equality

The Government Office for Gender Equality was established on 3rd February 2004 on the basis of a regulation of the Government of the Republic of Croatia (NN 18/04) as an administrative and professional service, dealing with professional and administrative issues regarding the accomplishment of gender equality in the Republic of Croatia. The Office started its work in March 2004.

Representatives of the Office participated in some of the round table discussions regarding gender equality and sexual orientation. The Office has donated minor amounts of money to LGBT organizations since its foundation. For example, this year Kontra was the only lesbian organization that was awarded a grant by the Office and it received the smallest amount of money (around 1000 USD) in comparison to other women’s organizations that received support from the Office.

The Office for Gender Equality published an open letter addressed to the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport whereby they expressed their support for our views regarding appointing gender equality and human rights experts to the Commission on Health Education. They stated that one of the Ministry’s highest priorities, having in mind their obligations in connection to the implementation of the Gender Equality Act and other laws and documents, was the introduction of gender-sensitive education. That was the only case when the office has reacted to our complaint in the past two years.

We asked the Office for its opinion and support for some of our proposals of amendments and laws, such as amendments to the Sports Act that would include sexual orientation into anti-discrimination provision and Registered Partnership Act, but we never received a response from the Office.

We believe that the Office gives its support to sexual and gender minority rights at only a token level by attending a minimal number of events related to the subject and donating minimal amounts of money to LGBT organizations, while failing to act on concrete cases of the Government adopting discriminatory laws or failing to adopt anti-discrimination laws.
Parliamentary Committee for Gender Equality
The Team for Legal Changes of Iskorak and Kontra established good cooperation with the Committee for Gender Equality. The Committee along with the Committee for Human Rights organized in cooperation with the Team for Legal Changes a round table discussion on the subject of the Registered Partnership Bill. The Committee for Gender Equality also adopted the Bill at its session in March 2006. and gave its support to the Bill at the session of the Parliament. Nevertheless, some members of the Committee made homophobic statements during the session of the Committee.

Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities
The session of the Committee for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities in March 2006, was the place where the one of the biggest violations of the human rights of sexual minorities occurred. The majority of the Committee’s members refused to give their support to the Registered Partnership Bill. Members of the Committee supported their decision by making homophobic statements. This kind of incident at the session of a working body of Parliament, which deals with violations of human rights, represents a serious violation of the human rights of sexual and gender minorities in 2006.
For example, Niko Rebić from Croatian Democratic Union, member of the Committee for Human Rights stated at the session of the Committee: “The main message of the Bible on this subject is Sodom and Gomorra and AIDS is one of the indicators of what happens in those same-sex unions.” This statement, as well as many others, was reported by the media, and therefore had a stigmatization effect on sexual and gender minorities and people that live with HIV/AIDS.
On the other hand, the Committee showed understanding for the proposal of the Team for Legal Changes regarding implementation of a definition of hate crimes into the Croatian Criminal Code. If we take into consideration the fact that the Team for Legal Changes based its argumentation for this proposal mostly on examples of criminal offences against members of national minorities, it is clear that the positive response of the Committee was not influenced by the Committee’s sudden awareness on the status of rights of sexual minorities. Nevertheless, we hope that the cooperation in this field will have positive effects on the work of the Committee in the future.

3. Media

The parliamentary discussion on the Registered Partnership Act took a lot of public space in 2006. Generally, the media correctly reported on the progress of parliamentary discussion with criticism directed towards homophobic statements of some MPs. In any case, the greatest attention was directed towards the statements of MP Lucija Čikeš who said that “whole universe is heterosexual - from the fly to the elephant” and towards the theories of MP Marijan Mlinarić on the evolution of homosexuality. A total of 19 texts were published by 24 sata, Jutarnji list, Večernji list, Slobodna Dalmacija and Glas Istria.
Correct media reporting was also observed in the case of the violent attack on the Rainbow party of Iskorak in the Santos club. On the other hand, there was less public attention on the introduction of the hate crime definition into the Criminal Code.

The Team for Legal Changes brought a petition before the Council of Honour of the Croatian Journalists Association against journalist Josip Jove. He wrote a text under the headline “Gay missionaries” that was published on 7th July 2006 in Slobodna Dalmacija in which he violated the Croatian Journalists’ Code of Honour. He commented on the Zagreb Pride event held in Zagreb in 2006 and stated: “It is a question of a militant, organized satanic sect, gay warriors or gay missionaries, who aggressively impose a novel view on the world.” At the meeting held on 16th October 2006 the Council of Honour accepted our petition and punished journalist Josip Jović by a public reprimand.

Furthermore, the Legal Team brought a petition before the Council of Honour of the Croatian Journalist Association against the main editor of Slobodna Dalmacija Mr Mladen Plese. He published a text by reader Mr Branimir Lukšić under the title “Homosexuality erodes the family” on 12th July 2006. At their meeting held on 16th October 2006 the Council of Honour rejected our petition with the explanation that the main editor did not violate the Code since he only published the attitude of one reader in the section which is provided for that purpose.

Great attention and criticism of the Croatian media were also directed towards the issue of health education in public schools and the work of Ministry of Science, Education and Sport.

For the Team for Legal Changes, the greatest failure of the Croatian media can be detected in the reporting on a homosexual tourists’ stay on the island of Hvar that was reflected by a huge amount of sensationalism. The coming of these tourists to Hvar was announced at the very beginning of July 2006, almost two months before their arrival, in an article by Ms Merita Arslani that was published in Jutarnji list. On 4th July 2006 an article by Mr Saša Jadrijević-Tomas in the daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija, under the headline “Hvar: EU homosexual summit” stating that island of Hvar would be “from the middle of July till the end of August under invasion of gay guests from the whole of Europe”. Such publications resulted in diverse reactions in the local community on which there were also public reports.

Concerned by the public attention directed towards their clients, representatives of the Happy Gay Holidays tourist agency asked for the help of the Team for Legal Changes of Iskorak and Kontra. Representatives of the Team for Legal Changes stayed on the island of Hvar from 19th August to 26th August and monitored the development of the situation. Throughout the time of their residence the hotel was secured by the police. This was particularly because on 18th August 2006 in Večernji list, an article by Ms Aurelija Kupanovac headlined “Torcida comes to beat up homosexuals on Hvar” was published. Following such public information, the Team for Legal Changes alerted the police authorities in County of Split-Dalmatia and also informed the French Embassy in Zagreb. In the next few days, a series of articles written by Ms Aurelija Kupanovac and Ms Sandra Veljković was published. In these articles incidents that never happened were described since the atmosphere on Hvar was quite peaceful and the impression was quite different to that described in the media. On 22nd August 2006 an article by the same journalists with the headline “Wild and naked in front of the Church” was published in Večernji list. The subject matter was the behaviour of tourists who the authors said were of homosexual orientation. It was stated in the text that the night before publication a naked young man walked in front of cathedral, of which a photograph was put within the article. In a telephone conversation with one of the representatives of the tourist agency, Ms Kupanovac herself said that the photograph in front of Church was not of a man of homosexual orientation. The publication of this text resulted in greater police intervention. For this reason, the Team for Legal Changes lodged a criminal complaint against the authors suspecting them of committing the criminal offence of dissemination of disturbing and false rumours. Furthermore, the Team for Legal Changes lodged a petition against journalists of Večernji list before the Council of Honour of the Croatian Journalists Society.

On the one hand the media were sensible towards the rights of sexual and gender minorities in relation to the proposition of Registered Partnership Act, violent attack in the Santos club and introduction of hate crimes into the Criminal Code; on the other hand they embellished the stay of the tourists on the island of Hvar with full sensationalism and a high level of homophobia.

The tendency of more correct reporting by daily and weekly newspapers with higher circulations is observed, while newspapers with smaller circulations from different regions of Croatia and especially local newspapers express a homophobic approach to this subject.


4. Education

In our view the education system in Croatia does not fulfil the basic conditions for education on human rights. Schoolbooks are still full of gender stereotypes and are not sensitive to the rights of sexual or any other minorities.

According to the National Policy for the Promotion of Gender Equality from 2001 to 2005, adopted by Parliament, the development of systematic education on gender equality and raising awareness on gender equality in the context of regular education was one of the highest priorities. However, the staff at the Ministry of Education did not take adequate steps for the implementation of the National Policy on Gender Equality and thus it stayed unimplemented.

Despite the objections filed by human rights NGOs and the Office of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality, the Programme on Catholic Religious Teaching was still the main educator on sexuality in primary schools.

In Croatian schools there was no sexual education as a separate class. There were only programmes led by NGOs, such as MEMO AIDS and Teen STAR. MEMO AIDS referred to health issues and did not encompass all aspects of sexual education. Teen STAR promotes abstention from sex and was influenced by Catholic Church. Many schools adopted this program.

Our analysis of the Teen STAR Programme showed its discriminatory attitude towards people of different gender or sexual orientation and marital or family status. Therefore, it was in contradiction with the positive legislation in Croatia. The Programme was included as an optional subject in 70% of primary and secondary schools in Croatia. It was approved by the Croatian Schooling Institute and supported by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport. We sent our observations on the Programme to the Office of the Ombudswoman for Children and the Office of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality, with a recommendation to bring the Programme into line with positive legislation in Croatia or to withdraw it from implementation in schools. The Programme also did not comply with basic pedagogical criteria.

In the National Policy for Gender Equality from 2006 to 2010 (Official Gazette, no. 114/06), in the chapter on gender sensitive education for the 2006 it says that the schoolbooks standard would be harmonized with the Gender Equality Act and published in 2006. However, such a standard was never published, and the schoolbooks standard from 2003 is still in force. Although in some segments the National Policy refers to the issue of gender sensitive education, this does not apply to sexual and gender minorities. Furthermore, the above National Policy mentions the need for the expansion of health education in primary and secondary schools with subjects of sexuality, but with the emphasis on sexually transmitted diseases. Education on sexuality is however a much wider subject than the context of sexually transmitted diseases, and this policy does not cover the whole subject.

On 15th September 2006 the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport brought the Decision on the Educational Plan and Programme for Primary Schools, which also regulates the content of the optional subject Catholic Religious Teaching (Official Gazette, no. 102/06). In this programme there is no explicit discriminatory content as in the Programme of Catholic Religious Teaching from 2003. However, the Programme puts its accent on human heterosexuality and that makes its implementation questionable from the perspective of the discrimination against sexual minorities.

Health education

On 19th December 2005, the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport elected the Committee for the Health Education, with tasks of preparing a public invitation for the creation of programmes of health education for primary and secondary schools, giving opinions on the programmes and giving its recommendations to the minister. The final deadline for the completion of these tasks was 15th May 2006.

On 23rd February 2006 the Ministry published the Invitation to File Proposals of Experimental Programmes of the Health Education in Primary and Secondary Schools. Institutions and individuals had the right to respond to this invitation. It was foreseen by the invitation that the programme of health education would be implemented as a class discussion lesson. Health education proposals should have contained human sexuality as a module. The relevant ministry should purchase programmes from their authors, according to the invitation.

After headlines in the media that the Ministry had already adopted experimental programmes, on 24th May 2006 minister Dragan Primorac publicly stated that the Ministry at that point had not considered health education programme proposals. However, the Team for Legal Changes and the Women’s Network expressed concern because it was stated in the media that the relevant Ministry would adopt the programme of the GROZD association. This programme was contrary to principles of gender equality, national and international legislation. Disappointed by the Ministry’s acts, the Team for Legal Changes of Iskorak and Kontra and the Women’s Network of Croatia with the support of ILGA Europe announced public demonstrations for 12th July 2006 in front of the Ministry.

On 11th July 2006 representatives of the Team for Legal Changes and the Women’s Network attended a meeting with the minister, Dragan Primorac. The minister gave a guarantee to the representatives of the Team for Legal Changes and the Women’s Network that during the decision making process at the Ministry, principles of human rights, gender equality, combating homophobia and national and international legislation would be taken into consideration. He also said that the Ministry would buy programmes, which would be implemented in Croatian schools. The Minister also guaranteed that he would make a public statement regarding all this through the national information agency.

The Team for Legal Changes and the Women’s Network cancelled the protest in front of the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport due to the agreement at the Ministry. On 13th July 2006 the Ministry issued a public notification in which they confirmed the points agreed upon at the meeting.

On the same day the Committee for Health Education at its 11th session reached the conclusion that at that point it could not recommend any of the proposed programmes to the Ministry. The reason for this conclusion was that the Committee had sent NGOs suggestions for amendments to these programmes. The programmes of GROZD and the Forum for Freedom of Education entered the final selection. The deadline for including amendments into the programmes was 18th August 2006.

On 29th December 2006 the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport announced that the Committee for Health Education concluded that the programme of GROZD for primary schools and programmes of GROZD and the Forum for the Freedom of Education for secondary schools were the best. These programmes were sent to the Ministry of Health for further evaluation.

The author of the GROZD programmes is Mr Ladislav Ilčić, also vice-president of the Teen STAR association and the author of the Teen STAR sexual education program, which the Ombudswoman for Children declared unconstitutional and contrary to national legislation and the Convention on the Rights of a Child.

Status of the Teen STAR Sexual Education Program

According to the data of the Teen STAR association, in the school year 2005/2006 this programme was implemented in 26 schools in Croatia; 17 primary schools and 9 high schools. 470 students attended classes under this programme in Croatia in the 2006. That is a significant reduction in relation to the school year 2004/2005 when the programme was implemented in 57 schools.

Ms Kristina Pavlović, president of the Teen STAR association and Mr Ladislav Ilčić, vice-president of the association are under criminal proceedings under suspicion of committing the criminal offence of Racial or other discrimination by violating the right of a child.


5. Homophobic Attitudes Expressed by Public Figures

In the past few years issues concerning sexual minorities have become more present in the media and public in Croatia. In this context public figures were on many occasions asked about their attitudes towards the LGBT population and their rights. The media often exaggerated homophobic attitudes of public figures, giving these statements unnecessary importance and the press has been putting huge sensationalistic headlines concerning homosexuality on their cover pages in order to gain publicity, without having second thoughts of any negative effect that such hate speech could have on inciting violence towards sexual minorities or on the quality of text that they served to their readers.

We have to conclude, unfortunately, that of the public persons who were homophobic in the past year parliamentary representatives were the majority. Those who should protect the interests and rights of all citizens have shown an unenviable quantity of ignorance and bigotry regarding sexual and gender minorities. By their public actions they contributed to the stigmatization of LGBT people that leads to discrimination and violence. The MPs who used hate speech against sexual minorities on the parliament assemblies are of three parties: HDZ, HSP and IDS. Those parliamentarians were: Karmela Caparin (HDZ), Niko Rebić (HDZ), Marijan Mlinarić (HDZ), Lucija Čikeš (HDZ), Vladimir Štengl (HDZ), Krunoslav Markovinović (HDZ), Perko Kovačević (HSP), Pejo Trgovčević (HSP) and Damir Kajin (IDS). The most prominent were the homophobic actions of HDZ MPs that currently has a majority in Parliament.

The majority of homophobic statements of parliamentary representatives came from the discussion on the proposed Registered Partnership Act.

On 24th November 2006 in an article in the daily newspaper Novi list, with the headline “Only HSP against adulterers and homosexuals”, it was stated: “As well as for adulterers, the position of members of the HSP regarding homosexuals in high places in the party is equally categorical... ‘Under no circumstances’, said Trgovčević bluntly.”

The Team for Legal Changes asked the Croatian Party of the Right (HSP) to explain whether the statement of Mr Trgovčević was correctly broadcast and whether it was true that the HSP forbids progress in the party to homosexual people, thus discriminating against its members on the basis of sexual orientation. The HSP has never explained its position on this, from which we conclude that there is really discriminatory practice in this case.

Mr Damir Kajin, representative of the Istrian Democratic Assembly (IDS), several times in his public actions equated homosexuality with paedophilia and condemned the activities of NGOs dealing with protection of the human rights of LGBT people. It is especially problematic that in the Programme Declaration of IDS is stated that this party advocates full respect of basic freedoms and human rights - freedom of thought, speech, public actions and assembly into political or other unions. From all of this it emerges that the majority of parties in the Republic of Croatia only nominally support human rights while in reality they violate those rights.

In past year Slavko Ferenčak (president of Croatian Skiing Association), Mila Jelavić (Ombudswoman for Children), Jadranka Kosor (vice-president of the Government), Jadranka Cigelj (former head of the Government Office for NGOs) and Marin Barišić (archbishop of the County of Split-Makarska) have also publicly acted in a homophobic way.

The Disciplinary Commission of UEFA punished by a fine of 5000 Swiss francs the former coach of Croatian football representation, Mr Oto Barić, for the homophobic statements published in the Saloon of Jutarnji list two years ago. The petition to UEFA was lodged by the Team for Legal Changes.


7. Violence and Discrimination

Violence and discrimination against sexual minorities are still common in Croatian society. The kinds of violence are various, from psychological, through verbal to physical violence. A pressing problem is still the fear of people who experience violence who do not report it because of their possible stigmatization by society. Members of sexual and gender minorities in a great number of cases are not informed of their rights nor about the mechanisms of protection of those rights. Because of this, the real number of violent incidents is hard to estimate and until recently all the cases that were actually prosecuted were cases of violence committed against activists.

However, in the past few years we have observed some improvements. Victims of violence are more and more often approaching the Team for Legal Changes for help and we have had cases in which they have publicly spoken about the violence they experienced. All of this speaks in favour of the fact that LGBT persons are more interested in their rights and want to exercise them. To provide help the Team for Legal Changes has published in the past year the 4th edition of their manual on how to use non-discrimination provisions and Croatian law. The objective of the manual is to inform the LGBT population of the legal system of the Republic of Croatia and the possibilities for protection of their rights as well as to inform them of whom they can turn to in cases of violation of their rights.

Serious violations of human rights of sexual and gender minorities in last year were reflected through the treatment by police officers of local police units in the process of registration and processing of cases of violence when the injured parties are of homosexual orientation.

Structure of cases of Team for Legal Changes

On-line counselling

A total of 27 questions were addressed to the on-line legal counselling centre supported by the www.gay.hr website in 2006. Of those questions 10 related to criminal offences committed against sexual and gender minorities and to the boundaries of allowable behaviour (e.g. age of consent for minors). Of the other questions the most prominent were those related to the scope of rights in same-sex unions (registration, right to share mutual property, inheritance rights, use of international law, acquiring of citizenship; 8 questions). Some questions related to the right of women living in same-sex unions to undergo medically assisted insemination, the incapability of homosexual people to donate blood, discriminatory policies of banks against same-sex partners and transmission of STDs as a criminal offence.

Two persons who asked about criminal offences against them asked the Team for Legal Changes for further help while in the other cases we have no information whether the injured person undertook criminal proceedings against the offenders.

Individual cases

In 2006 the Team for Legal Changes dealt with a total of 23 individual cases. Of that number, in 16 cases criminal offences committed against a number of people on the ground of their sexual orientation were noted.

Hate speech

A total of four cases related to hate speech of individuals in public space of which one case was solved by agreement while the criminal applications have been lodged with prosecutors’ offices against three offenders. Two applications were rejected and following that the Team for Legal Changes lodged one criminal lawsuit with the competent Court.

On the basis of current practice it was determined that competent State Attorney’s Offices reject criminal applications because they cannot find that offenders have direct intention to spread hate against or to belittle sexual minorities. This was solely based on the offenders’ statements that they had no such intention and that they only expressed their personal opinions.

Violent Behaviour

There were a total of three criminal offences of violent behaviour that were committed against several persons. In all of these cases the violence was reported to the police. In one case a criminal application was lodged with the prosecutor’s office but was later rejected. However, following that one criminal lawsuit was lodged with the competent court.

From the content of the criminal application made by the police in the case of the violent behaviour at the Santos club, it was not clear that the offenders had committed the criminal offence of violent behaviour but rather the offence of participation in a fight which was not punishable in that case. The lack of criminal investigation and collection of evidence by taking statements of witnesses surely led to such an interpretation.

Discrimination

In four cases we observed discrimination. In two cases an intervention was sought from the Office of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality and in one case a criminal application was lodged against suspected persons. In one case the launching of criminal proceedings is still expected.

Domestic violence

Domestic violence was observed in three cases of which two related to minors. One minor reported violence to the police about which the competent Centre for Social Welfare was informed. In the second case the Team for Legal Changes reacted before the competent Centre for Social Welfare and Office of the Ombudswoman on Gender Equality. In relation to the third case, the adult victim of violence was not willing to report domestic violence to the police.

From the manners of conduct in these cases the Team for Legal Changes came to the conclusion that for the reported cases the reaction of the police was proper. However, on the other hand, the reaction of the competent Centres for Social Welfare was insufficient. This is because social workers were insensible to the issues of homosexual minors. In one case under such treatment of the Centre the minor person ran away from his home and was without parental care for several months. The Team for Legal Changes assisted the police in the search for that person.

Criminal offences against honour and reputation

Several persons reported to the Team for Legal Changes that their personal data were disseminated through different blogs. The Team for Legal Changes intervened with the owner of the server but he did not accept the request to erase such information. There were no grounds on which the Team for Legal Changes could intervene ex officio in that case and there is no information that any of the injured parties lodged a civil lawsuit.

Criminal offence of making threats

This criminal offence was committed in one case but the injured party was not willing to prosecute the offender.

Other interventions before competent State Attorney’s offices

The Team for Legal Changes lodged a criminal application against two journalists for the offence of dissemination of false and disturbing rumours. Furthermore, in another case the Team for Legal Changes suggested to the Municipal State Attorney’s Office of Split that it instigate a criminal investigation on the grounds of suspicion that various people had committed the criminal offence of violent behaviour against several citizens of the Kingdom of Spain.

Interventions before other Government bodies and institutions

In the case of the priest who was detained against his will in Vrapče psychiatric hospital, the Team for Legal Changes officially warned the hospital that there were grounds to believe that such detention was contrary to the law. A special note about that was given to the County Court of Zagreb on the basis of the provisions of the Protection of People with Mental Disabilities Act. After the reaction of Team for Legal Changes the detained person was immediately released from the hospital.

Concluding remarks

Through the analysis of the cases as well on the basis of their number it is clear that in this year we can observe an increase in reporting criminal offences that were motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. Consequently the capability of the injured parties to use legal mechanisms to protect themselves is increased. The increase in number of reported cases still does not mean that criminal offences against sexual and gender minorities are generally increasing but rather that injured parties are more prepared to ask for help and express more confidence in the efficiency of the legal system.

Case management

In this section we highlight examples of some cases that we managed. All of the cases are not mentioned in the interest of the protection of the anonymity of persons who experienced violence or discrimination. From this reason the initials of the persons are randomly selected.

Domestic violence in the case of A.S. and L.P.

On 22nd February 2006 we have received reports from A.S. (50) and L.P. (18) in relation to the criminal offence of making threats (Art 129 para 2 of the Criminal Code - death threats) committed against A.S. and domestic violence committed against L.P. by his parents. At the time of reporting both injured persons were in an emotional relationship but L.P. was living with his parents. L.P.’s parents objected to the relationship he had with A.S. The Team for Legal Changes gave information to the injured persons on possible legal mechanisms that might be undertaken in this case.

Following the development of situation, continuous threats and violent behaviour the police intervened twice. The injured persons did not instigate prosecution for the criminal offence of making threats or domestic violence, although the police itself persecuted L.P.’s father for disturbing the public peace and order.

On 18th August 2006 this case was closed because a correct relationship was established between persons in conflict and there was no need to commence any legal proceedings.

Discrimination at the workplace reported by R.B.

Mr R.B. from Rijeka contacted the LGBT Legal Line on 4th January 2006. He claimed he was discriminated against in the workplace and fired from his job. Activists from the Team for Legal Changes travelled to Rijeka on 9th January and interviewed him.

He was employed in administration at the Ministry of European Integration. He claimed that his employment contract was not renewed because of his sexual orientation. His colleagues and his superiors insulted him during the period he was employed at the Ministry.

After examining the facts and consulting with a lawyer we concluded that there was no basis for initiating a civil lawsuit. However, we suspected that the crime of violation of the equality of citizens under Article 106 of the Criminal Code had been committed and the injured party expressed a desire to file a proposal for initiation of criminal proceedings.

After consultation with the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality, we concluded that she would request arraignment from the Ministry of European Integration on the case of Mr R.B. and after that we would decide on filing a proposal for initiation of criminal proceedings.

On 3rd February 2006 Mr R.B. sent an official memo to the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality. We are still waiting for the response of the Ministry of the European Integration.

Discrimination at workplace based on marital status reported by Dubravka Naumovski

On 20th March 2006 we received information about articles in newspapers regarding the case of Dubravka Naumovski, who lost her job at Croatian Television because of her divorce.

Since we had her contact details because one of our team members had worked with her previously, we took this case in cooperation with the Women’s Network and called her.

She informed us that she worked as a translator for sign language for the Religion Programme of Croatian Television. After her divorce became public, the editor of the Religion Programme Mr Antun Trstenjak called her and said to her that he was cancelling cooperation with her because he had a lot of complaints from viewers because she is divorced. He told her that she was a good worker and that he was sorry that he had to fire her, because he did not know whom to hire now. He asked her if she could recommend someone.

We immediately wrote a public statement regarding this case and forwarded it to the Government Office for Gender Equality, Government Office for Human Rights, Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights, Parliamentary Committee for Gender Equality and Office of the Ombudsperson for Gender Equality. We stated that discrimination based on marital status is prohibited by Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Gender Equality Act, and therefore can be qualified as the crime of violation of equality of citizens under Article 106 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

We asked for the response of Croatian Television regarding this case and stated that unless we received a response, we would bring criminal charges against the responsible persons. We also pointed out that we would inform the CEDAW Commission and international organizations of this case.

On 12th April 2006 we received a memo from the main director of Croatian Television, which was also sent to the Government Office for Human Rights. In the memo was stated that the Programme Board of Croatian Television decided at a session held on 22nd March 2006 that they did not accept the reasons Mr Trstenjak gave for cancelling cooperation with Ms Naumovski. Ms Naumovski continued to work for the Religion Programme of the Croatian Television starting on 9th April 2006.

Discrimination at workplace based on marital status reported by Petar Travaš

On 14th July 2006 Mr Petar Travaš, Episcopal teacher, asked the Team for Legal Changes for help claiming that he was fired from the schools where he worked on the grounds that he was divorced and that he was to remarry with another woman. Considering the power of the international contract with the Holy See that was ratified by the Republic of Croatia it was not possible to apply provisions of the Croatian national law. Mr Travaš was informed of that and was directed to the Office of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality.

Custody case of A.P.

On 5th June 2006 we received a call on our LGBT Legal Line from A.P. regarding a custody case over her children. We arranged a meeting with her.

A.P. was in a relationship with a woman. She was in the middle of divorce litigation with her husband. They had two children, 3 and 9 years old. The husband requested custody of the children and he indicated in the Centre for Social Care that she is a lesbian and that because of that the children should live with him.

On one occasion when she had an affair with another man, her husband had beaten her up.

The older son had problems with wetting his bed at night and she took him to the Centre for Psychological Help, where they discussed her sexual orientation and that the child with time accepted the fact well that his mother has an intimate relationship with a woman.

She agreed to psychological testing during the court procedure, but she asked us for an opinion on how to respond to questions regarding her sexual orientation. We recommended to her not to deny her sexual orientation, because the psychologist would also question the child and find out the truth.

In July 2006 she and her child went through psychological testing and they both denied the fact that she has any intimate relations with persons of the same sex. The psychologist requested documentation of the Centre for Psychological Help, in which was indicated the mother’s sexual orientation. From this it can be concluded that the mother encouraged the child to lie and that additionally complicated the case.

During the current proceedings, apart from in the psychological testing, the sexual orientation of the mother was never mentioned.

A.P. is represented by a lawyer.

Domestic violence inside a same-sex civil union reported by G.B.

On 18th July 2006 injured person G.B. turned for help to the Team for Legal Changes because his former same-sex partner Z.G. had beaten him up on 9th July 2006. He suffered injuries to his arms and concussion. He expressed a desire to file a civil complaint for compensation of damage. He also stated that one lawyer refused to take his case because he “didn’t want to deal with gay issues”.

Considering that in this case we were dealing with the criminal offence of physical injury under Article 98 of the Criminal Code we provided the injured person with information on civil complaints and passed the case to Lovorka Kusan, attorney-at-law.

Violence in the club “Santos”

On 4th March 2006 between 03:40 and 04:00 in the club “Santos”, Svetice b.b. in Zagreb, the suspects P.V., K.S. and I.S. physically attacked guests of that club in which a party organized by the Iskorak organisation was held. The suspected persons came uninvited to the club and physically attacked guests, injuring them with fists, kicks and glass bottles and verbally offending them: “Faggot, come outside! Come here, faggot! I saw two faggots fucking and that’s disgusting to me! Faggot, I’ll kill you! Sick, sick I’ll kill you all”. Several persons were injured and five of them were transferred to a hospital where a medical examination was conducted, after which they were released.

The investigation on this case was undertaken by the Maksimir police station within the Police Headquarters of Zagreb, determining the a misdemeanour against public order and peace, fighting in public, prohibited under Article 13 of the Misdemeanours against Public Order and Peace Act had been committed. After public condemnation of such procedure, the proper criminal investigation was conducted.

On 8th March 2006 the Team for Legal Changes brought charges against the suspects to the Municipal State Attorney’s Office in Zagreb for the qualified criminal offence of violent behaviour (Art 331 para 2 of the Criminal Code) and criminal offence of racial or other discrimination (Art 174 para 1 of the Criminal Code).

On 10th March 2006 the IV Police Station of Zagreb brought charges against the suspects to the Municipal State Attorney’s Office in Zagreb for the criminal offence of violent behaviour (Art 331 of the Criminal Code) stating: “On 4th March 2006 at 04:00 in the Santos night club in Zagreb, Svetice b.b., [the offenders] verbally conflicted with L.S., P.I., Z.D., M.J., T.M., M.L. and F.N. after which the verbal conflict escalated into physical conflict in which T.M., Z.D. and M.L. were physically injured.” Moreover, the police stated that “on the same day, in the Santos night club a party of homosexuals was held and about 04:00 came suspected P.V., K.S. and I.S.”

By a resolution of the Municipal State Attorney’s Office in Zagreb the criminal charge lodged by the police was rejected since on the basis of such petition it was not possible to determine that there had been committed the criminal offence of violent behaviour in this case but rather of participation in a fight.

On 30th May 2006 the injured parties Z.D., M.J., I.P. and T.M. brought a criminal lawsuit against the suspects before the Municipal Court in Zagreb for the criminal offence of violent behaviour linked to the criminal offence of racial or other discrimination.

To date, the Team for Legal Changes has not received any response from the Municipal State Attorney’s Office in Zagreb on the criminal charges brought on 8th March 2006.

The proceedings at the Magistrate’s Court in Zagreb for a misdemeanour against public order and peace are still in process.

Both proceedings were taken by a lawyer.

The case of minor N.N.1.

On 4th July 2006 Mr N.Np.1 (27) from Zagreb contacted the Team for Legal Changes claiming that he is in an intimate relationship with minor N.N.1 (15) from Zagreb who was mistreated by his parents on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

N.Np.1. said that he had met minor N.N.1 few months earlier and that they had been seeing each other intensively from that period. According to N.Np.1, minor N.N.1 disclosed his sexual orientation to his parents and after that he was subjected to domestic violence. His mother had forbidden him from going out, locked him at home, threatened and humiliated him. His peers also became familiar with his sexual orientation and subjected him to bullying. His parents told minor N.N.1 that he should have told them earlier so they could take him to a psychiatrist to treat him. On 21st June 2006 minor N.N.1 ran away from home and came to N.Np.1. He stayed at N.Np.1’s place until 30th June 2006 after which N.Np.1 reported this to the police and minor N.N.1 was transferred to his home. N.Np.1 said that the he reported domestic violence against minor N.N.1 to the competent Centre for Social Welfare and to the Ombudswoman for Children. Furthermore, he said that the social worker from the Centre for Social Welfare told him that she was surprised by the fact that it is possible for a boy younger than 16 to already be homosexual. In relation to the Office of the Ombudswoman for Children, he said that he got information from the psychologist of that Office that minor N.N.1 would be tested so they could see whether he is really homosexual or not. It was arranged that a social worker from the competent Centre for Social Worker would visit minor N.N.1 at his home on 5 July 2006.

On 6th July 2006 N.Np.1 informed the Team for Legal Changes that he spoke to minor N.N.1 who said that a social worker visited him at his home and talked to his parents and advised his mother to threaten his son that if he went out that he would be placed in the Dugave centre for children with behavioural disorders.

On 7th July 2006 N.Np.1 informed the Team for Legal Changes that on the night of July 6/7, the minor’s mother had called him and threatened him saying that the minor had run away again from his home. Furthermore, that minor N.N.1 had telephoned him and said that he had fled the country and that no one would be able to find him. The Sesvete police station was involved in the search for minor N.N.1.

On 7th July 2006 the Team for Legal Changes sent the Centre for Social Welfare in Sesvete a recommendation to intervene accordingly to the relevant provisions of the Social Welfare Act so that the minor would receive proper treatment within his family. The Team for Legal Changes informed the Office of the Ombudswoman for Children, Office of the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality and Government Office for Human Rights about this. The Ombudswoman for Gender Equality was asked to request a report from the Centre for Social Welfare on that case.

In September 2006 the Team for Legal Changes was involved in the search for minor N.N.1 conducted by Sesvete police station and the criminal investigation department in Zagreb. For the purposes of the investigation computer data within the server of Gay.hr were analysed.

In October 2006 the Team for Legal Changes was informed that minor N.N.1 had been found alive in a place in Slavonia, close to N.Np.1. Therefore, criminal proceedings were instigated against N.Np.1 for several criminal offences against the family and youths.

The Team for Legal Changes is continuously monitoring this case with purpose of further supervision within the family so that peaceful and healthy life would be ensured for minor N.N.1. We found that collaboration with the police officers was good while we are disappointed by the approach of the Centre for Social Welfare.

Case of minor N.N.2 (16) and N.Np.3 (31)

On 17th August 2006 N.Np.2 from Split asked the Team for Legal Changes on the legal status of minor N.N.2 from Kaštel Sućurac who was mistreated by his parents on the grounds that he is in an intimate relationship with N.Np.3 from Split.

He said that minor N.N.2’s parents had found out that he was in an intimate relationship with N.Np.3 and because of that were mistreating their son by restricting his communication with other people, following him to school and waiting for him after school.

On 18th September 2006 the minor’s father physically attacked minor N.N.2 and injured his head because of which the minor visited hospital for medical treatment. Following the provisions of the Protocol of Proceeding in Cases of Domestic Violence, the health workers reported violence against a minor to the police who intervened immediately and visited the minor’s parents. However, the minor was afraid to go home so N.Np.2 asked Team for Legal Changes to find shelter for N.N.2 in the area of Split, but we were not successful in this. Therefore, the minor spent the night with his friend and the next day went to the police in the morning to report violence. The police called a social worker from the Centre for Social Welfare in Split who took the minor home and told him that she could do nothing and if he was abused again that he report the violence to the police.

Moreover, N.Np.2 said that N.Np.3 received threats from the minor’s parents and that they had physically attacked him on several occasions.

Since the intervention by the police and Centre for Social Welfare in Split of 19th September 2006, the Team for Legal Changes have not received any further reports on domestic violence against minor N.N.2. Therefore we have requested no further interventions of the competent authorities especially because we do not want to cause an escalation within the minor’s family.

In relation to the treatment on the part of the competent authorities, the Team for Legal Changes notes that medical and police intervention was correct. However, we observe that the social worker from the competent Centre for Social Welfare in Split reacted in an improper way and guaranteed no safety for the minor within his family.

Violent attack against minor N.N.3 (17)

On 1st September 2006 minor N.N.3 from Đakovo reported to the Team for Legal Changes that the criminal offence of violent behaviour had been committed against him. He said by telephone that on 31st August 2006 at late at night he was walking with his friends through the main street in Đakovo when he was attacked by a young male person who was unknown to him. The perpetrator insulted him with the word “Faggot!” and tried to hit him with a chair that was in front of a bar, then he hit him on the head with a glass ashtray after which the minor escaped. However, the perpetrator came after him in another street and again punched him until other persons helped him and prevented the perpetrator from further attacks. Minor N.N.3 went to hospital for medical treatment that was given to him by the unit of medical care in Đakovo.

On 5th September 2006 the Team for Legal Changes visited the minor at his home. After counselling, the Team for Legal Changes accompanied the minor to the police station where he reported the case.

On 6th September 2006 the minor informed the Team for Legal Changes that the police had visited the offender and his parents who have guaranteed to the parents of the minor that there would be no further attacks on their son. Therefore, the minor and his parents concluded that there is no reason to insist on further criminal prosecution of the minor offender for the criminal offence of violent behaviour. From that reason the Team for Legal Changes brought no criminal charges against the minor offender for the criminal offence of violent behaviour (Art 331 para 1 of the Criminal Code)

The Team for Legal Changes has received no reports of new incidents against minor N.N.3 to date.

Kontra’s counselling centre opened on 8th January 2007

The lesbian group Kontra opened a telephone counselling centre for lesbians and bisexual women on Monday, 8th January 2007. Trained volunteers, members of the lesbian and bisexual women community, are working in the counselling centre with the supervision of psychologists. The opening of an e-mail counselling centre is planned.


8. Public Events

The two important public events for the protection of sexual minorities were held in Zagreb in 2006 - Zagreb Pride 2006 and Queer Zagreb 2006.

Zagreb Pride 2006

On 24th June 2006 the first regional LGBT Pride event in the region of Eastern Europe was held in Zagreb. At the same time, it was the fifth Zagreb Pride event. Organization of the regional Zagreb Pride event was supported by the logistical support of lesbian group Kontra.

From 22nd to 25th June 2006 the following events were held:

* Broadcasting of documentary films on Pride from the country and the region;
* Round table entitled “Freedom of assembly and violence against the Pride”;
* Seminar and workshop on monitoring and documenting human rights violations against the Pride;
* Cultural and artistic programme with performers from whole region.

Zagreb Pride 2006 included the collaboration and participation of activists and organizations from Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo, Albania, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Latvia.

The goal of the Zagreb Pride 2006 event was to direct attention to the issue of freedom of assembly taking into account that among the countries in the neighbouring Eastern European region only Slovenia and Croatia have a tradition of holding Pride events while an attempt to hold a Pride parade in 2001 in Belgrade was interrupted by attacks on the parade and police, and attendees were beaten up. This year Pride brought together representatives of those countries of Eastern Europe where due to socio-political reasons it is not possible to organize Pride or such events are forbidden by local or national authorities.

Freedom of assembly is considered a key element for the existence of liberal democracy. However, during the last few years prohibitions and restrictions of the right to free assembly, freedom of speech and expression of lesbians, gays, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual and queer persons in many countries of the Eastern European region are imposed. The objective of Zagreb Pride 2006 was to rise awareness of the violations of such freedoms and to show solidarity with the persons and organizations in those countries where Pride cannot be hold and to empower our LGBT community.

Queer Zagreb 2006

In 2006 the Queer Zagreb festival was held for the fourth time. This year great public coverage of the festival was observed as well as a significant increase in the audience. There is the proof that queer culture has succeeded in becoming established in the Croatian media and among a broader audience which contributes to the decreasing of prejudices against sexual and gender minorities. It is important to note that there were no incidents during the festival and during video projections through the year. Queer Zagreb received support from the media Feral Tribune, Zadarski list, Novi tjednik of Šibenik, Dubrovački vjesnik and Makarska kronika for the realization of the national campaign “...homophobes are people too” which is a testament to the openness of some media to queer matters. It is important to highlight that campaign was conducted in collaboration with studio Bruketa&Žinić which represents supplemental support to the LGBTQ movement in Croatia.

9. Health

On 25th July 2006 the Blood and Blood Products Act came into force. This Act is not discriminatory against blood donors in relation to their sexual orientation. However, the old Ordinance on Blood and Blood Products is still in force and according to this discriminatory ordinance homosexual behaviour is a permanent contraindication/obstacle for donating blood.

According to provisions from the Blood and Blood Products Act the minister of health has the obligation to revise the old ordinance and the deadline for this revision is 25th January 2007.

On 5th November 2006 an interview was published in the Catholic magazine Glas Koncila with Prof Dr Kocijan Hercigonja, a neuropsychologist. Prof. Dr. Kocijan Hercigonja stated in that interview that according to the valid international classification of mental diseases homosexuality is a sexual identity disorder. In reaction to this untruthful and unscientific statement similar to those stated by Prof Vladimir Gruden, the legal team of Iskorak and Kontra brought a complaint before the Court of the Croatian Medical Chamber for disciplinary proceedings against Prof Dr Kocijan Hercigonja and asked that Prof Dr Kocijan Hercigonja should be punished by a public reprimand.

The legal team of Iskorak and Kontra also asked Judge Mirjana Rigljan, the president of Zagreb County Court, that Prof Dr Kocijan Hercigonja should be dismissed from her position of court expert for Zagreb County Court, because of her lack of expert knowledge.

10. Sports

The Croatian women’s football club Bura participated in the Gay Games competition in Chicago in 2006. Two members of the Queer Sport initiative also participated in the Gay Games. Furthermore, one member of Bura and several members of Queer Sport participated in the Out Games event in Montreal. The members of Bura and Queer Sports participated in the annual assembly of EGLSF (European Gay and Lesbian Sports Federation) held in Budapest in March 2006.


11. Future activities of the Team for Legal Changes of Iskorak and Kontra

• Public campaign for the proposal of changes to the Same-sex Unions Act;
• Research of public attitudes regarding the rights of sexual and gender minorities;
• Cooperation with the police, State Attorney’s Office and courts in relation to combating hate crimes;
• Advocating introduction of anti-discrimination provisions on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression into the Constitution and all relevant acts;
• Providing direct legal help to persons who have experienced discrimination or violence due to their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.


12. Recommendations of the Team for Legal Changes

To protect the human rights of sexual and gender minorities on a greater scale we call upon:

• The Croatian Parliament and the Croatian Government to urgently introduce prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation to the Constitution and other relevant legal documents. By such intervention the way to full equality of all Croatian citizens would open;
• The competent bodies to stop discrimination against same-sex partners by ensuring those rights and duties that are accessible to opposite-sex partners through institutes of marriage and extramarital unions.
• The competent organs to extend institutional protection of sexual minorities’ rights;
• The Ministry of Science, Education and Sports to introduce sexual education into elementary and high schools in which sexuality and sexual and gender minorities would be objectively presented and to take responsibility for its implementation;
• Croatian Television and other independent television stations to actively apply our translation recommendations of foreign movies; furthermore, to include in their programmes shows and movies dealing with LGBT identities. We expect that such programmes would be broadcasted in conditions that the majority of citizens would be able to watch them. We are asking all the media not to give more public space to the spread of hate and incitement of violence against sexual minorities;
• Members of sexual minorities to use more legal instruments of the Republic of Croatia to carve out their rights and to protect and defend their identity;
• The competent institutions to recognize the rights and needs of transgender people and besides sexual orientation to introduce prohibition of discrimination on the ground of gender expression and gender identity into the Constitution and other relevant legal documents.



Sanja Juras Kristijan Grđan
Coordinator of Lesbian group Kontra and Coordinator of Iskorak - Centre
Team for Legal Changes of Iskorak and Kontra for Sexual Minorities Rights