Bosnia and Herzegovina

No Data

Immigration detainees

38

Detained children

2017

5,229

Refugees

2018

3,300,000

Population

2020

Overview

Bosnia and Herzegovina operates one dedicated immigration detention centre, near Sarajevo, which has been criticized for having inadequate conditions, including use of solitary confinement, lack of access to recreation, no provision of legal aide, and failure to undertake age assessments. The country is also notorious for the terrible conditions at its reception centres. The UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants called conditions at one of the centres “inhuman” after his visit to the country in October 2019.

Types of facilities used for migration-related detention
Administrative Ad Hoc Criminal Unknown

28 August 2020

D. Kovacevic, “Migrants ‘Stranded in Limbo’ at Bosnian Checkpoints,” Balkan Insight, 25 August 2020, https://balkaninsight.com/2020/08/25/migrants-stranded-in-limbo-at-bosnian-checkpoints/
D. Kovacevic, “Migrants ‘Stranded in Limbo’ at Bosnian Checkpoints,” Balkan Insight, 25 August 2020, https://balkaninsight.com/2020/08/25/migrants-stranded-in-limbo-at-bosnian-checkpoints/

Amidst rising xenophobic sentiment in the country (see 29 April update on this platform), in mid-August residents of Velika Kladusa (in the Krajina region, on the Bosnian-Croatian border) staged a protest to denounce purported assaults by foreigners on local civilians. The protestors reportedly blocked a road leading to an asylum seeker reception centre. During the week of 24 August, the first confirmed Covid-19 cases were detected in IOM-operated migrant facilities. In two centres near Bihac, several people suffering mild cases were transferred to the local hospital--prompting anger from local residents.

Tensions have been rising within the wider Krajina region, which has essentially become a bottleneck on the route taken by migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers attempting to enter the EU via Croatia. On 26 August, Bosnian special forces were dispatched to the newly-created Lipa camp (near Bihac) to calm a protest following an alleged police beating of a homeless migrant. Media outlets report that IOM staff withdrew from the camp before the special forces arrived.

Authorities in the region, frustrated that other parts of the country are not sharing the migrant “burden,” have reportedly begun to prevent all new migrant arrivals by blocking the main highway into the region and turning away all non-nationals. On 19 August, the Coordination Committee on Migration in the Una-Sana Canton (within the Krajina region) adopted measures to restrict the freedom of movement of migrants not accommodated in official reception centres. As part of these measures, authorities banned: the transport of migrants and asylum seekers by public transport and taxis; the gathering of migrants and asylum seekers in public places; and the provision of private accommodation to them. Roadblocks have been set up, and police have also carried out raids on informal settlements and private accommodation, forcibly removing those apprehended while failing to provide them with alternative accommodation.

The canton’s health minister justified the measures, claiming that the number of migrants with coronavirus was rising by the day. “We can’t control them because they move in groups of 100. They don’t follow any rules or norms and we have to think about protecting citizens.”

According to the Red Cross, growing numbers have found themselves stuck between the canton and neighbouring Republika Srpska--denied entry to Una-Sana and prevented from returning to the Serb Republic. Some of those stranded are living in a hut built by the Red Cross, however others are having to camp outside and no toilet or washing facilities are available.

Commenting on the recent restrictions, Amnesty International stated, “These restrictive measures that target an entire group are disproportionate and discriminatory and should be immediately reversed.”


22 July 2020

Sarajevo Immigration Detention Centre Entrance, (Google Maps,
Sarajevo Immigration Detention Centre Entrance, (Google Maps, "Sarajevo Immigration Detention Centre," March 2019, https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/bosnia-and-herzegovina/detention-centres/1708/sarajevo-immigration-detention-centre-lukavica-detention-centre)

According to the Bosnia and Herzegovina Institute of Human Rights (Ombudsman), responding to the Global Detention Project’s Covid-19 survey, the country did not establish a moratorium on new immigration detention orders, nor did it consider establishing one. The Ombudsman reported that no immigration detainees were released from detention, except those who were returned to the Republic of Serbia as part of readmission agreements, and placed in temporary reception centres. Prior to their return to Serbia, individuals were tested for Covid-19 and none tested positive. According to the Ombudsman, no alternative to detention programmes were implemented.

People detained in the Sarajevo (Lukavica) immigration centre were not tested for Covid-19, except in cases where the person exhibited symptoms of the disease, despite reports that the centre is overcrowded (see 29 April Bosnia and Herzegovina update on this platform). In addition, the management of the centre adopted a number of measures to prevent the spread of the virus, including suspending all visits to the centre, requesting strict compliance with hygiene and epidemiological measures, providing for mandatory quarantine for new arrivals, and other measures as recommended by the crisis staff.

The Ombudsman also indicated that deportations of non-citizens were suspended due to border closures and the grounding of flights, save for citizens of the Republic of Serbia who were allowed back into the country if they provided negative Covid-19 tests.

In an information request made by the Ombudsman to the Border Police of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), the police indicated that following the first confirmed cases of Covid-19 in BiH, they began implementing measures to detect possible cases of the disease. An action plan was devised and police officers were obligated to wear protective equipment, maintain social distance, measure the body temperature of officers and any other persons entering the official premises of the police, disinfecting official premises and vehicles, as well as maintaining personal hygiene.

As previously reported on this platform (29 April 2020), public attitudes towards migrants and refugees have deteriorated. The country’s Security Minister has suggested that non-citizens should be deported from the country as they represent an economic and security threat. Also, other asylum facilities, such as the Lipa camp, have been opened while arrivals to the country decreased in April 2020 compared with the same period in 2019.


29 April 2020

Bunk Beds in a Large Tent at the Temporary Reception Centre in Lipa, (IOM,
Bunk Beds in a Large Tent at the Temporary Reception Centre in Lipa, (IOM, "Bosnia Shifts Vulnerable Migrants and Refugees to New Temporary Camp," D. Kovacevic, Balkan Insight, 21 April 2020, https://balkaninsight.com/2020/04/21/bosnia-shifts-vulnerable-migrants-and-refugees-to-new-temporary-camp/)

As public attitudes towards migrants and refugees reportedly deteriorate across Bosnia and Herzegovina, the country’s Security Minister suggested on 23 April that non-citizens should be deported from the country. Alleging that they pose too great an economic burden during the pandemic - as well as a security threat - the Minister said that he would submit a proposal to Parliament. "(Migrants) who do not want to show their identity cards will not be allowed any more to use our migrant and refugee camps," he said. "They will go straight to jail. And we will keep them there for one to five years until we can establish their identity. This is our proposal for a new law." Although the Minister did not state a date for when his proposal would be ready for debate, the Service for Foreigners’ Affairs has announced that it has already begun preparing a list of persons to be deported.

In addition to its dedicated immigration detention centre in Sarajevo, Bosnia’s reception centres, many of which are severely overcrowded, are operating as temporary detention sites as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

According to UNHCR, as of 28 April, “BiH authorities reported 36 new irregular arrivals (for the month) of asylum-seekers and migrants to the country, adding to the total for 2020 at 4,459.” This is a modest decrease compared to the same period in 2019 when, when authorities reported 5,288 arrivals. The agency reported that “The number of asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants accommodated in reception centers and other formal accommodation currently in the country is 6,266, while some 3,000 persons are estimated outside formal accommodation or on route. For the time being, no cases of COVID-19 have been identified affecting asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants.”

In addition to the asylum reception facilities, the country has worked with the IOM to open what it terms a “temporary reception facility” in the town of Lipa, called “Lipa Camp.” According to BalkanInsight (21 April): “Despite opposition from Bosnian Serbs, migrants and refugees who were living rough are being resettled to a temporary reception centre near the village of Lipa in the country’s north-west. The authorities in the Una-Sana Canton, in cooperation with the International Organization for Migration, moved a first group of about 120 migrants and refugees to the new reception centre in Lipa, not far from the town of Bihac, on Tuesday. In total, about 1,000 people who have been living on the streets of Bihac and nearby towns in the recent weeks because there is not enough space at existing reception centres will be relocated to the Lipa camp. In mid-March, the Bosnian authorities imposed restrictions on the movement of migrants and refugees and ordered them into temporary reception centres as a part of measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.”

During a webinar organized by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights on 23 April, a Senior Regional Protection Officer at UNHCR raised concerns regarding reception sites in Bosnia, more than two-thirds of which are overcrowded. He underscored growing xenophobia in the region, stating that ‘’the number of problems that undocumented migrants and asylum seekers faced historically have increased with the coronavirus crisis.’’ While pointing out the closing of borders and other security-oriented measures, he called for the necessity to keep providing humanitarian assistance to asylum seekers and refugees.

UNHCR also reported in its 28 April update that “COVID-19 related restriction of movement for asylum-seekers and migrants in reception centres continued to be in force. Residents are unable to leave the centres unless exceptionally and with a special permit. Overcrowding in the largest reception centres makes isolation measures incl. physical distancing difficult to implement. Limited freedom of movement freedom creates situations of tension among residents incl. increased risk of gender-based violence.”


03 April 2020

Ivan Romano,
Ivan Romano, "Afghan Migrants Cook Inside an Abandoned Industrial Plant in Bhiac, Bosnia-Herzegovina," Getty Images, 10 January 2020, (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/mar/27/bosnia-crams-thousands-of-migrants-into-tent-camp-to-halt-covid-19-spread)

According to the UN, although the number of COVID-19 cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina is still considered manageable (under 500 as of 1 April) "the infection rate is rising fast and is expected to peak in the coming weeks. The authorities have taken measures to prevent the spread of the disease nationwide, such as curfews and school closures, as well as restrictions on movement in and out of the reception centres."

Bosnia and Herzegovina operates one dedicated immigration detention centre, near Sarajevo, which has been criticized for having inadequate conditions, including use of solitary confinement, lack of access to recreation, no provision of legal aide, and failure to undertake age assessments. The country is also notorious for the terrible conditions at its reception centres, which the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants called “inhuman” after his visit to the country in October 2019

In Bosnia, authorities ordered the transfer of thousands of migrants to a remote camp in Lipa due to the coronavirus outbreak in the country. A new camp was constructed a few days later, but there is concern over access to water, heat and electricity. Authorities have imposed a complete restriction on the movement of migrants beyond temporary reception facilities. The camp is expected to host at least 2,000 people for the time being, and 50 tents are already being set up. According to some sources, migrants will not be able to leave the camp which will be under surveillance by Bosnian police forces. An estimated 3000 migrants are currently living in cramped conditions in abandoned buildings or disused train stations.


Last updated: October 2019

 

 

Bosnia and Herzegovina operates one dedicated immigration detention centre, near Sarajevo, which has been criticized for having inadequate conditions, including use of solitary confinement, lack of access to recreation, no provision of legal aide, and failure to undertake age assessments. The country is also notorious for the terrible conditions at its reception centres, which the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants called “inhuman” after his visit to the country in October 2019.

Detention legal framework

According to the Special Rapporteur’s end of visit statement in October 2019[1]:

“The Law on Foreigners of 2015 upholds the principles of non-refoulement and non-discrimination. It also prohibits collective expulsion. Under the current normative framework, irregular entry and stay are not considered criminal offences. Immigration detention is not used in connection with irregular entry into the country or breaching the conditions of stay. Once an expulsion decision is adopted, irregular migrants are allowed to leave the country voluntarily within the deadline for execution.

“Provided by the Law on Foreigners, detention is only used as a last resort for as long as deportation or extradition proceedings are in progress. Detention cannot be imposed for a period longer than 90 days. Exceptionally, this decision can be extended up to another maximum 90 days. If the migrant cannot be removed to a third safe country, then the detention could last up to 18 consecutive months, and afterwards a measure of restricted movement to a specific area or location with an obligation to report can be applied. This could be the case for countries with which BiH has not signed readmission agreements, such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Pakistan and Syria.”

Detention centre

According to the Special Rapporteur’s end of visit statement in October 2019[2]:

“I visited the immigration detention facility and was disturbed by several issues I found there. On the day of my visit, one migrant was put in solitary confinement through an administrative decision for a period of 7 days because of violent behaviour. At least 2 migrants detained at the facility claimed to be minors and that their claims had allegedly been dismissed by relevant authorities without any age assessment. I also learned that some detainees were deprived of outdoor activities for over months. Detainees at the facility virtually do not have access to free legal aid. Information on how to request legal aid was not provided. I encourage competent monitoring bodies to conduct regular visits in order to prevent and protect migrants deprived of liberty from any human rights violations.”

Unaccompanied and separated children

According to the Special Rapporteur’s end of visit statement in October 2019[3]:

“Nearly 20% of the people on the move in BiH are children, among which more than one third are unaccompanied minors. In addition to the lack of adequate reception condition for minors, especially unaccompanied and separated minors, I have observed several other issues of concern during my visit. First, the Ministry of Security does not conduct age assessment. The age of the applicant is systematically taken as claimed without any evaluation. There are cases of unaccompanied minors who claimed to be older than their real age in order to be accommodated with adults for various reasons, including trying to get closer to sources of information about smugglers or smuggling routes. The lack of age assessment may result in minors being exposed to manipulation, exploitation and other abuses.

“I have also learned about a worrying trend of “pretending families”. Due to the lack of accommodation, many single men are left outside reception centres. There are over 40 cases of single men pretending to be family of an unaccompanied child in order to access services and abandon the child afterwards.

Migrant children, including asylum-seeking children, are not provided with family-based care, e.g. foster care, or community-based care, independent living units or other alternatives. There is hardly any shelter or safe house for child victim of violence or abuse except one shelter in Bihac run by a local NGO. Unaccompanied children face difficulties in timely obtaining access to guardians, as provided for them by law, which further delays their access to asylum procedure. In addition, the process of determining the best interest of the child is flawed. The centres for social assistance and welfare need to improve their working methods to avoid unnecessary delays in providing migrant children with the necessary protection.”

Reception centres

“Migrants including asylum seekers in BiH are generally accommodated in open reception centres. There are 2 official reception centres for asylum seekers in BiH. In response to the influx of migrants, 5 temporary reception centres have been established through the funding of the European Union. More precisely, Usivak reception centre is jointly run by SFA and IOM since the beginning. The other 4 temporary reception centres are initially managed by IOM while the takeover procedures are ongoing. All reception centres receive operational support from a number of UN agencies and civil society organizations. All 5 temporary reception centres are located in the Federation of BiH.

“I visited 6 reception facilities and I am most impressed by the efforts made by staff of UN agencies and civil society organizations to create dignified, child friendly and gender sensitive living conditions for families with children as much as resources allow. In Sedra and Borici temporary reception centres, there are a wide range of activities and services provided to the families living there. However, in general terms, existing reception capacities for migrants including asylum seekers and the condition of some reception centres do not meet the current needs. There is a lack of appropriate alternative housing for unaccompanied or separated children and victims of abuse and exploitation. For instance, due to lack of alternatives, Bira temporary reception centre, designed for accommodating single men, is currently housing mixed populations of single men, unaccompanied minors, and families with children. While I note with appreciation that UN agencies as well as civil society organizations are providing a wide range of educational, psychosocial and legal services to the children living there, the living conditions in the centre are not adequate or suitable for children. Although families with children and unaccompanied minors are lodged at designated areas, the lack of possibility to fully separate different populations increases protection risks. Although victims of gender based violence and other abuses have been identified in different centres, due to lack of safe houses available in BiH, victims can not be effectively separated from the alleged perpetrators.

 “Vucjak site. Throughout 2018 and 2019, there has been a big discrepancy between the maximum capacities for accommodation in reception centres and the estimated number of migrants including asylum seekers in the country. Besides those accommodated in private houses and civil society-run accommodations, a great number of individuals have stayed without shelter, mostly in Una-Sana Canton. While individuals have different protection needs, no one should be left behind. Since June 2019, the Bihac local authorities have decided to relocate migrants including asylum seekers staying outside reception centres to Vucjak site. This decision was later endorsed by relevant authorities at the State level. Vucjak site is located very close to landmine-infected areas and there is a high fire and explosion risk as the site was formerly a landfill.

 “On the day of my visit to Vucjak, I learned that there were approximately 800 adult men and around 20 minors. Migrants at the site mainly come from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. Many of them were escorted to the site by the local police. There is no running water. Drinking water is provided by the city and 2 meals a day delivered by the Red Cross in Bihac. The condition of the site is inhuman. There is no electricity, very few sanitation facilities, no warm water for shower and no medical care. I concur with the assessment made by the United Nations Country Team on the site and share my concerns over the significant safety and health risks at Vucjak. The location of the site is absolutely inappropriate and inadequate for accommodating human beings. I hereby urge the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to cease forcible escorting of migrants to this site and urgently identify an alternative location to accommodate these migrants, prioritizing minors. In addition, as winter is approaching, to avoid any loss of life, there is a pressing need for the authorities to identify additional accommodation for single men who are currently without shelter. I want to stress that there are shared responsibilities of authorities at different levels. The State level authorities should play a key role in this regard.”

________________________________

[1] UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, “End of visit statement,” 1 October 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25088&LangID=E

[2] UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, “End of visit statement,” 1 October 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25088&LangID=E

[3] UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, “End of visit statement,” 1 October 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25088&LangID=E

IMMIGRATION AND DETENTION-RELATED STATISTICS

Total number of detained minors
38
2017
33
2016
Criminal prison population
1,722
2016
2,886
2013
Percentage of foreign prisoners
2
2016
Prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population)
73
2016
155
2013
Population
3,300,000
2020
3,810,000
2015
3,700,000
2012
International migrants
34,800
2015
23,200
2013
International migrants as a percentage of the population
0.9
2015
0.6
2013
Refugees
5,229
2018
5,229
2017
5,256
2016
6,798
2015
6,926
2014
Ratio of refugees per 1000 inhabitants
1.39
2016
1.8
2014
1.79
2012
Total number of new asylum applications
55
2016
44
2014
53
2012
Refugee recognition rate
17.9
2014
Stateless persons
90
2018
65
2017
49
2016
79
2015
792
2014
Total number of immigration detainees by year
Number of immigration detainees on a given day
Top nationalities of detainees
Number of persons granted alternatives to immigration detention
Number of detained asylum seekers
Number of detained unaccompanied minors
Number of detained accompanied minors
Number of detained stateless persons
Number of apprehensions of non-citizens
Immigration detainees as a percentage of total international migrant population
Estimated total immigration detention capacity
Number of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
Estimated capacity of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
Number of dedicated medium-term immigration detention centres
Number of immigration offices
Number of transit facilities
Number of criminal facilities
Number of ad hoc facilities
Number of persons removed/returned (voluntary returns and deportations)
Number of deportations/forced returns only
Percentage of persons removed in relation to total number of people placed in removal procedures
Estimated number of undocumented migrants

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Gross Domestic Product per capita (in USD)
4,790
2014
4,656
2013
Remittances to the country
1,993
2014
2,021
2011
Remittances from the country
54
2010
Unemployment Rate
2014
Net official development assistance (ODA) (in millions USD)
632
2014
Human Development Index Ranking (UNDP)
85 (High)
2015
86 (High)
2014
Unemployment rate amongst migrants
Detention for deterrence
Pew Global Attitudes Poll on Immigration
Immigration Index Score
World Bank Rule of Law Index
Domestic Opinion Polls on Immigration

DOMESTIC LAWS AND POLICIES

Legal tradition
Civil law
2017
Core pieces of national legislation
Law of 2008 on Movement and Stay of Aliens and Asylum, April 2008 (2008) 2015
2008
Provision of basic procedural standards
Right to appeal the lawfulness of detention (Yes)
2016
Information to detainees () No
2011
Right to legal counsel () No
2011
Access to asylum procedures () No
2011
Types of non-custodial measures
Designated non-secure housing (Yes) infrequently
2016
Constitutional guarantees?
Additional legislation
Regulations, standards, guidelines
Immigration-status-related grounds
Non-immigration-status-related grounds providing for administrative detention in immigration legislation.
Does the country provide specific criminal penalties for immigration-related violations?
Grounds for criminal immigration-related detention/incarceration and maximum potential duration of incarceration
Has the country decriminalized immigration-related violations?
Maximum length for administrative immigration detention in law.
Longest recorded instance of immigration detention.
Maximum length of time in custody prior to issuance of a detention order
Average length of detention
Maximum length of detention for asylum-seekers
Maximum length of detention for persons detained upon arrival at ports of entry
Impact of alternatives
Is the detention of vulnerable persons provided in law? Are they detained in practice?
Mandatory detention
Expedited/fast track removal
Re-entry ban

INTERNATIONAL LAW

International treaties
Ratification Year
Individual complaints procedure
Acceptance Year
ICCPR, First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 1995
1995
CEDAW, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 1999 2002
2002
CAT, declaration under article 22 of the Convention 2003
2003
ICESCR, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2008 2012
2012
CRPD, Optional Protocol to o the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2010
2010
ICPED, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, declaration under article 31 2012
2012
Ratio of complaints procedures accepted
Observation Date
6/9
2017
Relevant recommendations issued by treaty bodies
Recommendation Year
Committee on Migrant Workers "§ 26. (a) amend the law on movement and stay of aliens and asylum to define the maximum length of administrative detention that is not derogable , with a view to prevent ing prolonged or indefinite detention ; ( c ) ensure that detention orders against migrant workers , in cluding those in an irregular situation, are only taken as a last resort, on a case-by-case basis , and strictly in compliance with applicable international standards; ( d ) ensure that migrant workers have access to legal aid and information on available remedies to appeal decisions ordering the ir detention , and p rovide in formation thereon in its next periodic report, including examples of cases where migrant workers in an irregular situati on have received legal aid ; and ( e ) ensure timely access by detained migrant workers to effective legal remedies ." 2012
2012
Regional legal instruments
Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
ECPT, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment 2002
2002
CATHB, Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2008
2008
CPCSE, Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse 2012
2012
ECHRP1, Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11) 2002
2002
ECHRP7, Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11) 2002
2002
ECHRP12, Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights 2003
2003
ECHR, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights 2002
2002
Bilateral/multilateral agreements linked to readmission
Year in Force
Observation Date
Belgium 2007
2007
2017
Bulgaria 2008
2008
2017
Denmark 2004
2004
2017
Germany 1997
1997
2017
Germany 2014
2014
2017
Italy 2004
2004
2017
Luxembourg 2007
2007
2017
Malta 2010
2010
2017
Netherlands 2007
2007
2017
Slovakia 2009
2009
2017
Slovenia 2006
2006
2017
Sweden 2005
2005
2017
Switzerland 2005
2005
2017
Albania 2009
2009
2017
Russian Federation 2016
2016
2017
EU 2008
2008
2017
Relevant recommendations of the UN Universal Periodic Review
Observation Date
No 2010
2017
No 2014
2017
Ratio of relevant international treaties ratified
International treaty reservations
Treaty bodies decisions on individual complaints
Regional treaty reservations
Regional judicial decisions on individual complaints
Recommendations issued by regional human rights mechanisms
Visits by special procedures of the Human Rights Council
Relevant recommendations by UN Special Procedures

INSTITUTIONAL INDICATORS

Authorized monitoring institutions
The Human Rights Ombudsmen of Bosnia and Herzegovina (National Human Rights Institution (or Ombudsperson) (NHRI))
2016
Is the national human rights institution (NHRI) recognized as independent?
Yes
2016
Does the country receive external sources of funding?
Yes
2011
Federal or centralized governing system
Centralized or decentralized immigration authority
Custodial authority
Apprehending authorities
Detention Facility Management
Formally designated detention estate?
Types of detention facilities used in practice
Does NHRI carry out visits?
Does NHRI have capacity to receive complaints?
Does NHRI publicly release reports on immigration detention?
Does national preventive mechanism (NPM) carry out visits?
Does NPM have capacity to receive complaints?
Does NPM publicly release reports on immigration detention?
Do NGOs carry out visits?
NGO capacity to receive complaints?
Do NGOs publish reports on immigration detention?
Do parliamentary organs carry out visits?
Do parliamentary organs have capacity to receive complaints?
Do parliamentary organs publicly report on their detention findings?
Do internal inspection agencies (IIAs) carry out visits?
Do IIAs have capacity to receive complaints?
Do IIAs publicly report their findings from detention inspections?
Do international and/or regional bodies (IRBs) visit immigration-related detention facilities?
Do IRBs publicly report their findings from inspections?
Types of privatisation/outsourcing
Detention contractors and other non-state entities
Estimated annual budget for detention operations
Estimated annual budgets for particular detention-related activities
Estimated cost per detainees day (in USD)
Estimated annual budget for non-custodial measures (in USD)
Estimated costs of non-custodial measures (in USD)
Description of foreign assistance