Child Trafficing

Jagoda Savić is occupying also with one very famous story of  post war  illegal international adoption of Bosnian  children in Italy. Jagoda Savić found some children whose parents were searching them for 16 years a and gave her  determinant contribution in discovering  responsible persons.
Approximatelly 130 children, entrusted to state institutions, were transfered abroad to save themselves from war danger. 46 of them from orphanage from Sarajevo, with the state consent, but without parents' consent, were evacuated  to Italy on July 18th 1992 with the assistance of Bosnian NGO  First Childrens' Embassy Međaši. Their previous legal status of these children was “temporarily collocated“ in orphanage, due to serious family diffciluties. They were not abandoned by their parents.
When children arrived to Italy with a help of First Childrens' Embassy , it's secretary general Duško Tomić left children to italian authorities without any written document that could regolate Italian  duties of temporary custody and the terms of return. The older children, ages 12- 16, were accomodated in the city of Igea Marina, and the younger children were accomodated in Center “Mamma Rita“ in Monza near Milan. Legal consequence of such delivery of children to foreign institution is the achievement of a status of apatride  and provided for them direct access  to italian jurisdiction. Facilitate in such a way their international adoptions in Italy, 16 of them were later adopted  without agreement of their biological parents.


Center “Mamma Rita“ in Monza

Summary:
Italy never asked Bosnia and Herzegovina to receive back these children and Bosnia and Herzegovina never refused to do it. Italian Government  decided to not send  back a group of accomodated Bosnian children in their country of origin, but to  make juridical procedure for each child and to examine their situation case by case.
Between  Bosnian official position, formed as  “Programme of integral protection of children refugees without parents in Italy“  and Italian official position it was three months of time.  It seems that Bosnian State guideline was not translated and delivered to Italian side before the session of Italian Government. Instead of  to percieve Bosnian official position and to decide to accept it or to refuse iItalian side decided  about the argument seeing it in their own way.
This Bosnian failure directed possible politic treatment  of problem toward legal treatment. After this mistake, Bosnian side never corrected it and  from 1996 to 2004 never  raised the question on the top of unresolved questions between Italy and BiH.
Italy didn't  take present  of a Bosnian situation  after the war, that didn't develop acceptable level of basic state functions, and wasn't capable to answer on Italian legal requests in this matter. Italy treated Bosnia as “normal“ country that can corrispond on Italian issues. Bosnian representative Slavica Terzić, with a mandate of Ministry for social affairs, refugees and displaced persons didn't procede  in adequate way and with  adequate timing. Mrs. Terzić didn't adapt her action to italian legal approach, searching to block it with tools provided with  Italian Law, by italian lawyer and within Italian Court of Appeal,  in order to overcome examination  case by case and to  insist on collective return of children.

Relevant steps in 1995-1996:
During the course of 1995, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of BiH in cooperation with the Ministry for Refugees of the  Republic of BiH, on two occasions initiated the return of 46 protegees to Sarajevo. On both situations, the security situation in Sarajevo worsened, and the stated Ministries gave up the mentioned initiatives.
On December 12 th 1995  president of Consiglio regionale  Lombardia Roberto Formigoni with his  letter nr. 458/ 95  asked  Bosnian Embassy in Rome to intervene within bosnian government to revise decision about return  until  the end of school year in June 1996.
According to testimony of Salvatore V. there were the most rich families who pretended to adopt bosnian children. In December 1995 when bosnian authorities came to Monza to transport bosnian children from Center Mamma Rita, these rich families  collected more than 100 000 000 lira  and gave it to Suor Rakela. Mr. A.D. told to Salvatore that he by himself gave about 20 milions lira  to protect children he wanted to have. This person gave precise order to Suor Rakela  to not answer the phone calls and to be careful what to say. Admira Bešić  testimony that she was hidden out of Center Mamma Rita for a couple of days to be sure that nobody will take her to Sarajevo. Someone told to these aspirants that there is terrible and dangerous situation in Sarajevo and that children will be killed if they return back.



daughter Admira and mother Refia Besic
meeting on 22.12.2006

At that time, however, an Italian media campaign was initiated for the children to remain in Italy until June 1996. Reasons given by the Italians for the campaign were education and poor conditions in the Institute immediately after the war, including lack of heating and instructors and inadequate nutrition. Because the reasons given for childrens' continued stay initialy seemed justified, Administrative authority of Sarajevo, Skupšina grada,  issued a decision extending the stay of children until June 1996.
On July 11th 1996 Consul addressed a letter to the Ministry of Foreign  Affairs stating that on June 27th 1996 two officials representatives  of BiH and the city of Sarajevo came to Milan to organize return of children to Sarajevo. On that occasion, the Municipality of Milan, the main financer of childrens' stay in Italy, directed a team to the judge MAG, Chief Advisor of the Custody Department within the Court of minors, who  informed them that a report should be submittted for every proteggee of the Institute, based on which she would issue a decision on their possible return, or continued stay in Italy. Consul stated that judge MAG considered that she received jurisdiction to make such determination upon receipt of a document following the meeting of the Committee for Protection of Foreign Minors .
It appears that on July 3rd 1996 the Consulate of BiH in Milan sent information to the Court of minors that for children  “there is no prospect of return to their families“. On July 26th 1996 the Court for minors initiated the proceedings for the potential adoption of children. On August 30th 1996 the Office for Refugees within the Consulate addressed a letter to the ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that italian families had initiated proceedings for the adoption of children from Monza. Attached to the letter were the names of 25 children for whom the proceedings were initiated.
On July 8th, 1996, DAS/9166/I  The Presidency of the Council of ministers of Italy, Social Affairs department,  based on the meeting of the  The Committee for the protection of  minors strangers , that was held on 27. 06. 1996, declared to facilitate return of children up to 12 years, and to examine case by case the situation of minors, evaluate family ties in their country of origin and to decide about their stay in italy or return home.  
On July 26th 1996 Consulate made confusion between legal terms while translating first Court's documents about  children from orphanage from Sarajevo, adopted in Italy. One simple  instrument of legal protection, making request to collect the informations  about the case in official way  in order to verify  possible status of  being abandoned, and to decide how to proceede , has been understood as the opening of a procedure of adoption  and has been presented in BiH as a situation in which  that it is too late to do anything.
On December 11th 1996 the Consulate clearly stated it's objection regarding the program for individual return of children to BiH. On December 28th the Ministry for Refugees and Migration sent a letter to the Canton Sarajevo Ministry for Work, Social Issues, Displaced Persons and Refugees informing it that the proceedings for the adoption of minor  children had been initiated within the Court for minors. This letter requested the Canton Sarajevo Ministry for Work, Social Issues, Displaced Persons and Refugees, via its municipal organs for social protection, to determine the conditions for the childrens' return, to prepare social anamnesis ( a summary of subject's relevant medical and social beckground) and to take the parents' statements , as well as to obtain their authorization for a representative from the Ministry for Refugees and Migration Slavica Terzić, to represent their childrens' best interest in front of the Court for minors. The Federation of BiH prepared  social anamnesis  by an unknown organ, and signed by M.O., and submitted them to Italy in January 1997.

On Aprile 24th 1996, based on proposal of Ministry for social affairs , refugees and displaced persons of BiH, Presidency of BiH  voted “Programme of integral protection of children refugees without parents in Italy“.

On July 15th 1996 Azem Mujan reported  that conclusions of the Committeee for custody of minors within Council of ministers of Italy  blocked the return of bosnian children to BiH.

On August 16th  1996 Court for minors in Milan  inform Bosnian authorities about declaration of status of  di adottabilita   of children in procedure.


Crucial events in 1997

On  May 14th 1997 the Court's makes  decision about entrance of children in procedure “to enter into the appropriate family context“. This decision generally describe the information submitted to the Court for minors from BiH. This court found that no one took care of the children, until a temporary representative was appointed for them in Italy, and no one represented them under the law of their country except their parents who, although having not lost their parental rights, did not have any substantial relations with them
on July 7th 1997 the Court sends the  information to Bosnian authorities about open procedures.

Italian verbal notes:
Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs sent following verbal notes to Bosnian Ministry for Foreign Affairs:

  1. 375 od 10. 03. 1998 with a list of children and addresses of their parents, for the audience of parents in  front of local authorities,

  2. 909 od 16. 06. 1998 delivery of one added address

  3. 2146 od 02. 12. 1998 asks information about request for international legal assistence

  4. X od 05. 02. 1997 delivery of one added address

  5. X od 13. 07. 1998 RS/ 1570 delivery of one added addresses

  6. 4092 od 31. 07. 1997 information about procedues opened by the Court of minors

  7. 498/98 od 08. 07. 1998 information to ask “ Magistratura minorile“ for every further request

  8. 550 od 05. 04. 2011 Italian side asks where there are three verbal notes  ( 375, 909 i 2146)

  9. BiH br. 08/3-31-613-4/11 aa Bosnian side asks evidencies od delivery of verbal notes

Italian international court's orders  were sent in official way to Bosnia and Herzegovina , as a request for international assistence. These orders were  not formulated in precise way.  The orders had a content of request for international assistence, but instead of to be addressed on precise  executor of the order in another state, the orders were   addresses only to “competent authorities“ . In fact, these orders for the audience of biological parents (so called rogatorie internazionali) were addressed to Bosnia institutions that doesn't exist. For example, one of titles was Ministero grazia e affari sociali ,( Ministry for Justice and Social Affairs) or Committato per i bambini presso Consiglio dei ministri Bosniaco ( Committee for children within the Council of Ministers)  that has been founded five years later after sending of this court order, or General direction for emmigrations and social affairs etc. So, the return of international court's orders was not neccessary condition for a court's final decision. Beside that, someone  canceled the  data of sending  the order, July, 7th 1997 unknown data to unknown receiver

Sedina Kahvić case
Sedina Kahvić was  found thanks to Italian TV transmission “Chi l' ha visto“ by RAI 3 that is searching missing persons. “Chi l' ha visto“ broadcasted a service about Sedina and Uzeir on December 19th 2005 and she was found on January 8th in one small  vilage in Tuscany. A Court didn't authorised this meeting , but Sedina and her father met each other on October 22nd 2006 on the railway station in Florence.



Sedina and  Uzeir Kahvić
meeting on 22. 10. 2006 

Meeting discovered crucial details about artificial disconnection between daughter and father. Sedina received a letter from her father in December 1995 with his photo and a photo of her brother Sedik. She remembers that in that letter father asked Sedina if she wants to return home. Sedina forgot her native language and a letter was translated for her from Bosnian to Italian. Then she wrote her answer and it was translated from Italian to bosnian language. She gave it to a nun of staff of Center “Mamma Rita“ in Monza, where she was living last four years, to send the answer to her father to Sarajevo. His address written on the back side of the envelope. Sedina also said that on December 14th 1996  she declared in front of psychologist of Center „Mamma Rita“ her wish to return home. A judge ignored her wish and gave order to collocate her in Italian family.
The Court of minors in Milan had  both a home phone of  Uzeir Kahvić and his address, that he didn't change from 1985. ( Ministry of interiors KS, Sector  for administration,  Ilidža i Trnovo, nr. 03/ 3-10-13-6-59/ 10 , issued on January 7th 2010). The court  sent his address to Sarajevo in attachment to  verbal  note nr. 375  of March 10 th 1998, in a list of parents.
On March 9th 2000 the  Court declared that it is not possiible to send the invitation to Uzeir Kahvić for the audience  according to point  142,  because of a lack of certainity of the information regarding his address. Because of that reason, the court proceeded to deliver the invitation  according to the  the article 143 par. 2., putting it on court's OGLASNA PLOČA .
The conclusion regarding the addess of Uzeir Kahvić was based on a lack of the answer  of international court's order  by Bosnian side. As the court had the same problem with all other addresses, the logic conclusion in such situation should be that there is not something wrong with parents'  addresses, but  with bosnian institutions . Some other instruments for checking addresses were also available to the court,  a service of Interpol, the assistence of Italian Embassy in Sarajevo etc. Instead of checking his home address, on March 9th  2000 the court ordered the appearance of  Uzeir   Kahvić , according to article  12 of the Law  184/ 83 on 10. 04. 2000 u 9: 30 within the court, warning him   that in the case of a lack of appearance, unjustified with proper reason, a court will declare the status of adotabilitta. Uzeir didn't appear and the sentence of adoption has been pronounced.

2. The Court of minors in Milan had social and family anamnesis of Sedina in which it was written that her mother died on 16. 01. 1989. Beside that information, the court sended the invitation to dead mother to appear for the audience that should be held on Aprile 10th  2000 u 9: 30.
3. Uzeir  had  five   written declarations regarding his wish to return back his daughter to Sarajevo. These declarations were made on January 16th 1997 and on March 11th 1997 in front of bosnian social worker Hidajeta Smajlović , third was made on 01. 12. 1998  by Bosnian Consul in Milan.
The fourth declaration Kahvić made in front of Haris Bašić, assistent of state minister for civil affairs on 17. 09. 1999  Uzeir Kahvić asked  mr. Bašić to help him  to contact his daughter. Mr. Bašić sent a  proposal to bosnian Consulate in Milan to try to contact persons who took care about  Sedina and to achieve  their agreement for direct contact between  Sedina and her father and his possible   visit to Italy. The coordinates of this  document are: MCP, br. 02-1351/99/ZN/ od 20. 09. 1999, MFA-BA-RPZ 10822-07-14567/ 99 od  30. 09. 1999. There are no traces of  this document in Sedina's  juridical  file???
The fifth has been made by  Mrs. Giovanna L. , director  of Italian non governmental organization “Amici dei bambini“ to find his daughter in Italy. Mrs. Giovanna L. called social service of Municipality of Milan and informed social worker that father is searching Sedina. A social worker Natalia Banfi decided to not transfer this information neither to Sedina nor to her aspirants for adoption, although such information could block adoption procedure. Natalia Banfi sent  the information about father's searching of his daughter  to the court on  10. 02. 1999 , after keeping it for month and half in her hands. All  these documents didn't correct evaluation of tutelary judge.
4.) The Court  made significant  mistakes in elaboration of the case. For example, the court  made  conclusions based on opposite arguments that exclude each other. To mention just a few:  
a) Court's evaluation is that  Sedina doesn't remember the faces of her father and brother and their names, is opposit to a fact Sedina  had father's and brother's  photo;
b)  that Sedina wants to save the idealistic immage about idealistic family, forgetting that living in the orphanage from 40-th day of her life, she couldn't have  the model to construct a concept of  family life. Sedina wants to save the idealistic immage about herself and not about idealistic family, because the situation touches her value judgements; 
c) that Sedina expressed hystery, crying, islolation, destruction of objects and  enuresis noctrurna, forgetting to make precise diagnosis that identify  causes of her disturbs, that also could be  a difficulty to adapt herself to a new ambient, feeling of being rejected by her family of origin, or even PTSP.
Court goes on with a procedure without precise diagnosis of Sedina's psychological status, that  is important to define her real psychological needs. Sedina had  two wishes that existed at the same time in her mind, so called “I want A and I want B at the same time“ , ( I want to return back to Bosnia and I want to live with italian family in Italy). Such conflict of desires  should be resolved  putting her  two  immages “ how I see me in family frame“ in one. Only after a cure of this psychological problem, the Court could proceede with resolving a legal problem.  The Court left her  to  function with disbalanceand with a lack of terapeutic treatment, leaving  her to take the most important decision of her life , while being influenced  by the optics of unresolved psychological conflict.
Beside that, the Court didn't verify in proper way her status of being abandoned and gave a priority to Sedina's  economic welfare in Italy  comparing to her  blood relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  
The Court also didn't precise if father couldn't or didn't  want to take Sedina after the war. 
The Constitutional court of BiH recognized that BiH violated Uzeir Kahvić's right to respect for his family life as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The essential object of Article 8 of the Convention is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities. The Commission found  that the applicants, prior to their childrens' removal from Bosnia and Herzegovina, had sufficient ties with their children to be considered family ties within the meaning of Article 8. Further, since he end of the armed conflict, the applicant have been persistent in his  attempts to establish contact with his daughter. In the case of Uzeir Kahvić, it appears that upon the death of his wife he chose to have his daughter reside in the Institute, apparently feeling unable to raise an infant as well as maintain his employment. The applicant submits that he maintained close ties with his daughter while she lived at the Institute, and provided written ecidence from the Institute documenting his regular visits and financial contributions to pay to costs of her stay. Since the end of armed conflict, the applicant has persistently sought to have his daugher.

On November 3rd  2005 Uzeir Kahvić writes to the President of Italy, Mr. Carlo Azeglio Ciampi,  and asks a justice. On November 10th  2005 Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Italy answers to Uzeir Kahvić, that  a Court for minors has sent to BiH a serial of decisions and documents to the audience of biological parents in order to express their intentions  regarding their children.

This  topic had no support from Bosnian politicians.
On December 2nd  2005 protocol Office of Ministry for Human Rights of BiH  receives   the answer of Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Italy on protocol Office.

On January 26th 2006 on the occasion of the session of the Council of ministers of BiH  Ministry for human rigths of BiH has been incharged to prepare written report regarding this group of adopted children. This Ministry  didn't even propose the realization of the decision of the Constitutional court. Beside that, Ministry for human rights of BiH had hidden a letter from Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs  from ministers of bosnian government, although that has been both received two months before the session and  had very significant importance to clarify the matter.  On May 16th 2006 on the occasion of the 94th session  of the Presidency of the State,  minister for foreing affairs, Mladen Ivanić declared: “Sincerelly, I don't understand was is expected by us? Because of that I couldn't propose any conclusion.“, and “I don't see which statement you could take. I think that it has been created a media “noise“ and that we in this moment have nothing to do and we can't do“.
On December 22nd 2009 Italian Ministry for foreign affairs,  General direction for italians abroad and for migratory politics, Adoptions office,  answered to “Missing children“ of BiH ,  repeating previous statements about international court orders and verbal notes.
On November 2nd 2010 President of the Court for minors in Milan Mario Zevola answered to four parents who still search their children.

Other indicative  cases:
There is the example of one international Court's order that has been regularly delivered. A grandmother of Elmir Šehović  received the order, signed and returned it back to Italian Court. His sister Elma was in Germany during the war and hasn't been adopted there, but returned to BiH.

 Elmir and Elma Šehović

The Court falsly declared a lack of contacts with the family of origin also in the case of Amela and Jasenko Hasečić. These brother and sister  had contacts with their sister Muniba, nick named Biba, who  visited  them in Italy. Biba was accomodated 21 days in Center “Mamma Rita“ in Monza, together with Amela and Jasenko. There a a couple of photos that evidence their meeting in Italy.  But, in  their juridical dossier it has been written “for four years no contacts with a family of origin“.


Amela and Jasenko Hasečić

Vedrana Hastor has been born on December 16 th 1986 or December 5th. In BiH Vedrana officially doesn't exist because she  has  no civic number (JMBG) and she is not registeres in Anagraphic Register of birth . Beside that, Vedrana has three personal names and two family names. She appears as Vedrana Hastor, Arijana Hastor and Maja Ivezić , which is the name of her registration in the Register,  under  nr 32 for a year 1986. Biological parents of Vedrana had juridical procedure for  refusal of paternity  by father's side, nr. P 475/ 87, blocked on September 20th, 1991 because of a lack of interest of the accusee. In  all Municiplaities' documents in Milan, Vedrana appeared  with  the indication  “father unknown, mother unknown“. But, during the procedure of adoption, according to the court, it appeared Vedrana's father with wrong name Samir marcela, composed from personal names of her father and her mother. Vedrana  was adopted because this person with a wrong name didn't appear at the audience.

Another case raise a question on legal basis for evacuation and later adoption of children from the orphanage “Ljubica Ivezić“.Three days after the departure of convoy with 46 children , one three months old baby also left the institution. Italian journalist Franco D. asked permit to transport her to Italy to save her life. A mother of the baby was not available and a baby was officialy under custody of Center for social work. Due to emergency situation, minister for social work permitter to this baby to leave the country. But, it appeared another problem with baby's departure. She was left in the orphanage by her mother after a birth and she didn't have personal name. A baby has been registered in the orphanage's documents as “Smajlović, žensko“ that means  “Smajlović,  female“.
It is not clear under which circumstancies one baby can have passport and necessary war-exit permit issued for a person without name? Beside that, minister Martin Raguž gave a permit for Smajlović female to leave the country , adding his recomendation for the adoption of some children from the orphanage “Ljubica Ivezić“.
In July 1992 all civil laws, including Family Law,  were put out of use and substituted by war laws. Some members of the State parliament, who saw this document , explained that it has not been verified by big seal  of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that was according to rules, but with a small one, which was in use for state financial affairs. The delivery of baby Smajlović female to Franco D. happened in hotel “Holliday Inn“.