Bosnia and Herzegovina. Declaration On Xxxxxx Xx Xxx Xxxxxxxxxx Xx Xxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxxxxxxx The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on behalf of its constituent peoples and citizens, approves the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina at Annex 4 to the General Framework Agreement. For the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Declaration On Behalf Of The Republika Srpska The Republika Srpska approves the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina at Annex 4 to the General Framework Agreement. For the Republika Srpska
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Declaration On Xxxxxx Xx Xxx Xxxxxxxxxx Xx Xxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxxxxxxx The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on behalf of its constituent peoples and citi- xxxx, approves the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina at Annex 4 to the General Framework Agreement. For the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Declaration On Behalf Of The Republika Srpska The Republika Srpska approves the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina at Annex 4 to the General Framework Agreement. For the Republika Srpska Annex 5: Agreement on Arbitration The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska agree to honor the fol- lowing obligations as set forth in the Agreed Basic Principles adopted at Geneva on Septem- ber 8, 1995, by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the latter representing also the Republika Srpska:
Bosnia and Herzegovina. GCC 1.1 (e) (iii) The Project Sites are: as specified in the attached Implementation Schedule. GCC 1.1 (e) (x) The Contract shall continue in force until the Electronic Health Record Software and all the Services have been provided unless the Contract is terminated earlier in accordance with the terms set out in the Contract. GCC 1.1. (e) (xii) The Post-Warranty Services Period is four (4) years following the expiration of the Warranty period during which the Supplier may be obligated to provide maintenance and/or technical support services for the Software, and in accordance with any amendments to the legislation within the Post-Warranty Services Period the bidder must modify the software solutions as requested, under separate contract(s).
Bosnia and Herzegovina. General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (The Dayton Agreement), 21 November 1995 Bosnia and Herzegovina:Framework Agreement on Police Restructuring, Reform and Democratization in Republika Srpska, 9 December 1998 Burundi: Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement for Burundi, 28 August 2000 Cambodia: Agreement on a Comprehensive Political Settlement of the Cambodia Conflict, 23 October 1991 Colombia: Political Constitution of Colombia, 1991 Colombia: Acuerdo de la Puerto del Cielo, 15 July 1998 Democratic Republic of Congo: Ceasefire Agreement (Lusaka Agreement), 10 July 1999 El Salvador: Peace Agreement, 16 January 1992 Eritrea: Constitutional Commission of Eritrea Draft Constitution, July 1996 Fiji: Constitution (Amendment) Act 1997 of the Republic of the Fiji Islands, 25 July 1997 Guatemala: Agreement on Resettlement of the Population Groups uprooted by the Armed Conflict, 17 June 1994 Guatemala: Agreement on the Identity and Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 31 March 1995 Guatemala: Agreement on the Social and Economic Aspects and Agrarian Situation, 6 May 1996 Guatemala: Agreement on the Strengthening of Civilian Power and on the Role of the Armed Forces in a Democratic Society, 19 September 1996 Guatemala: Agreement on the Basis for the Legal Integration of the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, 12 December 1996 Guatemala: Agreement on the Implementation, Compliance and Verification Timetable for the Peace Agreements, 29 December 1996 Guatemala: Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace, 29 December 1996 Israel/PLO: Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II), 28 September 1995 Israel/PLO: Protocol Concerning the Safe Passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 5 October 1999 Mexico/Chiapas: Protocole sur les principes de negociation en vue d'un accord de paix conclu par le Gouvernement et l'EZLN, 11 September 1995 Mexico/Chiapas: Actions and Measures for Chiapas Joint Commitments and Proposals from the State and Federal Governments, and the EZLN, 17 January 1996 Mexico/Chiapas: Agreement, 16 February 1996 Mexico/Chiapas: Commitments for Chiapas by the State and Federal Governments and the EZLN under Paragraph 1.3 of the Rules of Procedure, 16 February 1996 Mexico/Chiapas: Joint Declaration that the Federal Government and the EZLN shall submit to national debating and decision-making bodies, 16 February 1996 Mexico/Chiapas: Joint Proposals that the Federal Goverrment and the EZLN...
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The case of Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxxx and the political party “Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina”31, hereinafter referred to as Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, is the first of the two legal proceedings which will be presented in this work. As stated before, both of these cases are dealing with issues of human rights, more specifically the area of political rights – the right to vote and the right to public participation in government affairs.32 After the Bosnian war, Xx. Xxxxx actively participated in the social and the political life of his community in the city of Srebrenica, entity of Republika Srpska. He was elected and held several political offices, including the seat in the Council of Peoples in the Parliament of Republika Srpska. In 2006 Pilav announced his candidacy for the member of the Presidency of Bosnia and 31 Originally “Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu”, trans. mine; 32 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21; Herzegovina33 on general elections which were to be held in October the same year. Therefore, he submitted his application to the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, this institution refused his candidacy, firstly on July 24 (decision number 01-07-1-913- 103-1/06) and then on August 1, after he appealed to the previous decision (decision number 01- 02-2-1581/06). Consequently, he submitted an appeal to a higher instance, in this case, to the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. With this request he was questioning the Electoral Commission’s ruling. On August 00 xxx Xxxxx xx Xxxxxx xxx Xxxxxxxxxxx confirmed that the Commission’s decision adhered to the current legal framework. Ergo, his next step was to complain to the highest, and last possible instance, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Xx. Xxxxx made an appeal against the decisions of both the Central Election Commission and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in front of the Constitutional Court of the country.
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxx submitted an appeal in front of the European Court of Human Rights on July 3, followed by Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxx on August 18, 2006. The ECHR decided to combine appeals number 27996/06 and 34836/06 in a single case. The Court made this decision due to their 51 ECHR decision number 198 (2016) Exclusion of Bosniak politician residing in Republika Srpska from election to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina similar nature. Both appellants are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and members of minority groups – Roma and Jews, respectively. Also, they submitted an appeal due to their ineligibility to stand for election in the Council of Peoples and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of their origin. Before going any further into the details of the case, it would be interesting to review why the cases of Xx. Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxx never even came in front of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the previous rulings, the Constitutional Court claimed that it didn’t have jurisdiction over this area. The ruling in the case of Pilav and Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina is precedent in the Constitutional Court’s attitude regarding the interpretation of Article II/2 of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This Article clearly proclaims the supremacy of the European Convention of Human Rights over the national laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, until the ruling during the session held on September 29, 2006, the Constitutional Court applied different interpretations on the decisions it reached. Let’s examine decision number U 5/04 from March 31, 2005. In this case, the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina rejected as inadmissible a request made by the chair of Presidency. It was a request for the abstract review of the compatibility of Articles IV and V of the country’s Constitution with the European Convention of Human Rights.52 The Constitutional Court’s argument was that this institution didn’t possess the jurisdiction to examine the issue of compatibility. This decision was based on the claim it was not possible for the Constitutional Court to make a ruling on the question of compliance of certain provisions of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the European Convention and its Protocols, since the question overcame the constitutional framework and was out of the reach of the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction.53 Furthermore, the admissibility of the request depended on the relation ...
Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 14th June 2007 a meeting concerning the final phase of the Pro- gramme drafting was held in Sarajevo. The meeting concerned the «approach question», namely – «integrated» versus «transitional» approach.
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The IPA Component II Co–ordinator (within the meaning of Art.
Bosnia and Herzegovina. ■ Contracting is the responsibility of the ECD as the Contracting authority for the BiH part of the project. ■ The ECD issues the grant contract to the selected beneficiaries.
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Botswana ............................................................Brazil ...................................................................Brunei ..................................................................Bulgaria ...............................................................
