This chapter in Justice as Prevention examines two approaches to personnel vetting in Bosnia and Herzegovina following the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement. It examines UN efforts to screen and certify the police, and the reappointment of judges and prosecutors by the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils (HJPC). It argues that efforts to build public institutions to prevent the recurrence of abuses should generally not be limited to excluding abusers, but requires comprehensive institutional reform, including a full review of personnel.
Between 1999 and 2002, the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) screened approximately twenty-four thousand law enforcement personnel. The HJPC, bodies with mixed international and national staff, reappointed judges and prosecutors for close to one thousand – almost all – judicial and prosecutorial positions between 2002 and 2004.
The UNMIBH certification process and the HJPC reappointment process represent two distinct approaches to vetting. The certification process was a review process. Serving law enforcement personnel were screened and removed only if they did not meet the criteria for certification. On the other hand, in the reappointment process, the courts and prosecutors’ offices were reconstituted and there was a general competition for all posts.
Although the goal of the certification process was to remove those individuals who were found unfit for service, the aim of the reappointment process was to select for office the most qualified candidates.
- Both the UNMIBH certification process and the HJPC reappointment process reveal an institutional dimension of vetting. The principal rationale for both processes was comprehensive personnel reform to build fair and effective institutions rather than establishing individual accountability for past abuses.
- The UNMIBH certification process relied exclusively on international resources and actors, who applied internal guidelines that were not integrated into domestic law. The HJPC reappointment process was better integrated into the domestic system, ensuring a smooth transfer to a domestic follow-on mechanism.
- Early efforts to vet the police and the judiciary collapsed, inter alia, due to a lack of qualified staff, inadequate resources, and insufficient time. Both the UNMIBH certification process and the HJPC reappointment process were hugely resource-intensive.
Four significant issues arise in comparing the two personnel reform processes and appear relevant to a better understanding of the concept and practice of vetting in general:
- An institutional dimension is inherent to any vetting process. In designing a vetting process, its likely institutional impact should, therefore, be taken into consideration from the outset.
- Efforts to build public institutions that prevent the recurrence of abuses should generally not be limited to excluding abusers, but require a comprehensive reform of the institution, including a full review of its personnel. Effective personnel reform will identify the various shortcomings of the institution’s employees and ensure the selection of competent and representative personnel of integrity.
- When an internationalised vetting process is established, every effort should be made to involve domestic actors as broadly as possible, to ensure its integration into domestic law, and to put in place provisions guaranteeing a seamless changeover from the extraordinary transitional vetting process to regular domestic selection and recruitment procedures.
- The success or failure of vetting processes significantly depends on a thorough evaluation of operational requirements and the provision of adequate time and resources.
