Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Judges --- Jurisprudence --- Kennedy, Anthony M.,

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The scientific and professional literature in Bosnia and Herzegovina has not considered the issue of legislation on museums to a great extent during the past decades. Although tens of museums and galleries on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina actively work (the first museum collection was established in 1884 in Humac near Ljubuški, and the first public museum institution – the National Museum was founded in 1888 in Sarajevo), legislation apparently seems not to have been an interesting issue for research and analysis. During the period of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1941) the common legal act on museums did not exist although it was drafted on several occasions. In those days, there were two public museums in Bosnia and Herzegovina (the above-mentioned National Museum in Sarajevo and the Museum of Vrbas Province in Banja Luka founded in 1930) and the management staff of these museums was appointed by the Ministry of Education in Belgrade. The first law on museum activities was adopted in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the World War II (1947) which made Bosnia and Herzegovina the first republic in Yugoslavia have such a legal act (Macedonia passed its own law in 1948 and Serbia in 1951). Before passing the Law on Museums (which contained 6 articles), the Decision on Protection of Cultural Monuments was made in February 1945 in Belgrade. It was signed by Marshall Tito and it was binding for the entire country. The amendments to the first Law on Museums were adopted in 1948. During 1960 a new, and much more extensive law on museums was passed and it contained 52 articles (during 1960s all the republics of former Yugoslavia passed their own laws on museums some of which for the first time such as Croatia, for instance). The laws were passed by the Assembly upon the proposal of the Government and the Ministry in charge. The last amendments to the law on museums in Bosnia and Herzegovina before 1992 were passed in 1987. During the recent war (1992-1995) the legally binding Regulation on Museums dating from 1993 was in force. After Dayton Peace Agreement had been signed in Paris in 1995, the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina ceased being in charge of science, education and culture on the basis of Annex IV (which makes the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina). This means that the field of cultural activities became the responsibility of the entity of Republika Srpska and the cantons in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The issue of museum activities was regulated in Republika Srpska by the law and the respective by-laws while in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina several cantons have legally stipulated museum activities by the corresponding laws (e.g. Canton Sarajevo in 2000, Zenica-Doboj Canton in 2003, Tuzla Canton in 2002, Bihac in 2001 and West Herzegovina Canton in 2009). It is interesting to note that Bosnia and Herzegovina has never had the legally regulated central museum institution (there used to exist “central“ museum institutions for certain fields such as archaeology, ethnology or history) nor have there been any common standards or norms for the museum activities (to provide the required minimal space for storing, library, the defined minimal smaller or larger space as the standard for the museum institutions etc.). It is particularly interesting that even nowadays Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have the museum of technology, traffic and the like, and, thus, there is no legal regulation to define such exhibits within the field of museum activities. Th ere is no Technical Museum (traffic, railway, post etc.) which is, nowadays, normally present in the European museum practice. Presently, this kind of legislation exists in Republika Srpska according to which the Museum of Republika Srpska and the Museum of Modern Arts of Republika Srpska represent the central museum institutions in that entity. They have also adopted the norms and standards for museum activities.

Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence --- Museology Heritage Studies --- Library and Information Science

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Pred vama se nalazi drugo izdanje jedine publikacije u Bosni i Hercegovini koja na visokostručan i sveobuhvatan način tematizuje seksualnu orijentaciju i rodni identitet u bosanskohercgovačkom pravnom sistemu. Sarajevski otvoreni centar ovom publikacijom nastavlja svoj rad na pravima LGBT (lezbejki, gej, biseksualnih i transrodnih) osoba. Već tri godine radimo na jačanju LGBT zajednice, zalažemo se za veću vidljivost LGBT tema u bosanskohercegovačkoj javnosti kroz publicističke, medijske, kulturne i umjetničke projekte, te radimo na zagovaranju prava LGBT osoba naspram državnih institucija. Rad na pravima lezbejki, gejeva, biseksualnih i transrodnih (LGBT) osoba zahtjeva visok nivo profesionalnosti i uporan rad. A upravo svaki takav rad zahtjeva konstantnu analizu stanja, što kroz ovu publikaciju i činimo. Nadamo se da smo bosanskohercegovačkoj stručnoj, ali i široj javnosti, ovom knjigom ponudili_e sveobuhvatni uvod kada su u pitanju prava jedne od najdiskriminisanijih društvenih grupa u bosanskohercegovačkom društvu. Na osnovu ove publikacije, Sarajevski otvoreni centar i druge organizacije imaće priliku da odrede pojedine ciljeve kada su u pitanju zagovaranje i lobiranje za unapređenje prava LGBT osoba u Bosni i Hercegovini. Ova knjiga izlazi u ediciji Ljudska prava Sarajevskog otvorenog centra, ediciji u okviru koje objavljujemo različite naslove koji se tiču političkih i pravnih aspekata ljudskih prava, njihove normativne analize, ali i praktične primjene. Drago nam je da je ovo već deseti naslov ove edicije. I na kraju, kao voditelj ovog projekta, želim srdačno da se zahvalim različitim akterima koji su doprinijeli da ova knjiga bude objavljena. Na prvom mjestu tu su autor Damir Banović, moj kolega i drug. Damiru, kao autoru prvog izdanja, pridružila se i koleginica Vladana Vasić, jedna od najboljih mladih pravnica-aktivistkinja u Bosni i Hercegovini. Također, zahvalnost dugujem i saradnici Sadžidi Tulić koja je dala značajan doprinos pri izradi ove publikacije. Bez njihove ekspertize i upornog rada, ova publikacija nikada ne bi bila realizovana. Hvala i svim organizacijama i pojedincima_kama koji_e su Damira i Vladanu podržali_e u izradi ove publikacije. Također, zahvaljujem se lektorici Dalili Mirović i dizajnerici Lejli Huremović. I za kraj, veliku zahvalnost dugujemo i našim partnerima iz Ambasade SAD-a, koji su podržali ovu aktivnost.

Social Sciences --- Gender Studies --- Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence --- Human Rights and Humanitarian Law --- Sociology --- Social differentiation

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

(English edition) Throughout the totalitarian rule of the regime of Slobodan Milošević and his henchmen, which lasted for over a decade, the country’s prisons remained shut to public scrutiny. Information about the state of human rights of the prisoners and the conditions in which they served their sentences was the exclusive privilege of the state authorities directly involved and of the individuals and institutions concerned with the matter for purposes of scientific research. The question of prisoners’ human rights was completely marginalized by war, crimes, economic hardship and daily violations of citizens’ human rights and freedoms up to 5 October 2000. For many a convict, being locked away to serve a sentence of imprisonment did not mean mere deprivation of liberty for a set period of time, but also the start of a cruel struggle for survival in the gloom of lawlessness, corruption, torture, inhuman conditions and society’s total lack of interest in his or her life behind bars. It was only after widespread prison rioting broke out in November 2000 that the public’s attention was drawn to the conditions in which the prisoners served their sentences. The prisoners put out announcements throwing light on the substandard and inhuman conditions prevailing in Serbia’s penitentiaries and prisons. During the riots, groups and individual prisoners made statements complaining that the prison conditions were far below the levels set by relevant international standards and domestic prison rules. The prisoners alleged serious violations of their physical and psychological integrity, humiliating and degrading treatment, unjust punishment and general arbitrary treatment by prison personnel. They complained of, among other things, torture by beating, lack of minimum personal hygiene facilities, absence of medical treatment and health care, and corruption among prison administrative staff. Some of the allegations and complaints were partly confirmed by competent officials of the Ministry of Justice. As a palliative for the utterly unsatisfactory prison conditions, federal and republican amnesty laws were duly introduced to be finally adopted respectively on 26 February 2001 and 13 February 2001. Nonetheless, although a number of convicts were fully amnestied and a percentage of sentences commuted, the conditions in which prisoners served their sentenced remained unchanged. In addition to the factors mentioned above, the inhuman conditions in Serbia’s prisons endured and multiplied also owing to the country’s isolation of many years, during which time no international organization other than the International Red Cross was granted access to its prisons. Domestic non-governmental organizations were also kept at arm’s length and only rarely allowed to see what went on inside. In view of the circumstances enumerated above, it was clearly necessary to introduce continuous monitoring of prisons by an independent, non-governmental institution in order to obtain a realistic picture of the prison conditions. The new government is aware that admission to the Council of Europe and to other international organizations depends in part on the conditions in which sentenced persons serve their prison sentences, as well as that the public must be informed about those conditions. So, after presenting the concept and objectives of the Prison Monitoring project, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia was granted permission in May 2001 to visit institutions for the enforcement of criminal sanctions. This meant that for the first time in the history of this state an NGO could apply for and be granted permission to visit places of detention, custody and imprisonment without any restrictions, to interview prisoners with no personnel being present, and to talk to personnel without the presence of administration officers. Between June 2001 and October 2003, the Helsinki Committee paid a total of twenty-one visits to institutions for the enforcement of sanctions entailing the deprivation of liberty. During the period covered by this report (April 2002 to October 2003) the Helsinki Committee visited twelve institutions (one maximum-security prison, two closed prisons, three open prisons, two district prisons, one psychiatric prison, one reformatory, and one juvenile prison). In launching the project, the Helsinki Committee was principally guided by Article 64 of the European Prison Rules which states: ‘Imprisonment is by the deprivation of liberty a punishment in itself. The conditions of imprisonment and the prison regimes shall not, therefore, except as incidental to justifiable segregation or the maintenance of discipline, aggravate the suffering inherent in this.’ The Helsinki Committee hopes that its efforts to complete the project and publish this book will make a small but valuable contribution towards achieving this goal.

Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence --- Criminal Law --- Security and defense --- Evaluation research --- Penal Policy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Jurisprudence --- Law --- Judges --- Interpretation and construction. --- Attitudes. --- Scalia, Antonin, --- United States. --- Officials and employees --- Attitudes.