Non-discrimination

According to participants, Croatia had a good legal framework and oversight mechanisms on discrimination, but there were issues with implementation in practice. They had the feeling that the political will in the area of non-discrimination had slowed down after Croatia's accession to the EU, in parallel with the re-emergence of nationalist discourses. Participants felt that consultations on the recently adopted National Plan to promote and protect human rights and combat discrimination did not allow them to influence its content in a meaningful way. On their side, the Croatian authorities considered that CSOs had indeed been fully involved in the working group meetings and the public consultation, and that the authorities had provided explanations when suggestions could not be integrated into the document. Participants in this session and the session on the rule of law expressed their trust in the work of the general and sectoral ombudsbodies, which they considered as more efficient than the various Government offices in the area of human rights and discrimination. However, they regretted the fact that ombudsbodies depended on the Parliament for their election and that the ombudsbodies for children, gender equality, and persons with disabilities could be dismissed by the Parliament if their report was not accepted. On that point, the Croatian authorities indicated that the situation could be addressed through the transposition of the EU Directive on Equality Bodies.

Participants regretted the absence of a Strategy on Gender Equality in Croatia since 2015, while noting that a new one was currently being prepared. They noted that the right to abortion dated back to when Croatia formed part of Yugoslavia, but that such a right was limited by the fact that many doctors used conscious objections. Participants called for more awareness-raising efforts to inform women about their rights and to complement the repressive approach to gender-based violence with prevention campaigns. Sexual harassment, notably in the education sector, was not sufficiently addressed and sexual education was missing in school curricula. Participants pointed to the high cost and length of judicial proceedings as detrimental to women's access to redress, and called for more training for the police and the judiciary. Participants regretted that women bore the brunt of the fact that Croatia was largely a precarious work economy that relied on short-term contracts. They acknowledged that the gender pay gap had decreased but felt that it was still too big.

Participants appreciated that the National Roma Inclusion Strategy was ambitious and that, overall, the situation had improved over the last twenty years. However, they considered that implementation was still slow in leading to long-term results. Lack of skills and education were believed to lead to a 6/7 vicious circle limiting the real integration of Roma people in the labour market, despite the existence of positive discrimination policies that were welcomed. Participants believed that the 2014 Law of Same-Sex Life Partnership was not being systematically implemented. They regretted the lack of a national strategy for LGBTIQ persons, and the fact that their rights were generally absent from other strategies on gender and human rights. They indicated that a change of legal identity was possible for transgender people, but also that there was a total lack of public policy concerning the relevant medical aspects. Participants believed that there was a growing social acceptance of same-sex relations in Croatia, but that the weight of religion and conservative culture was the source of an anti-civil society narrative which particularly targeted LGTBIQ persons.

The rights of migrants, including asylum seekers, were raised in both this session and the one on the rule of law. It was remarked that the alleged thousands of illegal pushbacks at the border had to be considered as a rule of law issue given what was qualified as a near total absence of investigations. According to one participant, only around ten judicial proceedings had been initiated, most of which had been dismissed by the attorney. According to that participant, the Croatian authorities denied there was any systematic aspect to the alleged pushbacks and presented proven acts of violence as isolated cases, despite the fact that the country had been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It was felt that the independent monitoring mechanism put in place by the authorities was not fully independent, as it could apparently not make unannounced visits to the border or access the databases of the Ministry of Interior. It was also regretted that neither the ombudsbodies nor CSOs could apparently access police stations and places where asylum seekers were detained – the ban on CSOs providing legal aid to access reception centres resulted from COVID-19-related restrictions, which had not been lifted. Concerning the alleged pushbacks, the Croatian authorities pointed to the fact that the country was the first EU Member State that had set up a monitoring mechanism – which they insisted was independent – as requested by the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. They added that every incident at the border had been investigated through disciplinary or judicial channels.