The Court observ “that the Presidency is a political body of the State and not of the Entities” (para 73) and that the current system does not reflect that. With regards to the House of Peoples it held that such a legislative body can be acceptable only if its powers had “been limit to the precisely, narrowly and strictly defin vital national interests” (para 55) laws where constituent peoples could exercise their veto rights. However, given the fact that the House of Peoples has full legislative powers, “it is of utmost importance that all segments of society should be represent in the House of Peoples” (para 55).  under what conditions the power sharing arrangements for the House of Peoples can be compatible with the ECHR.

The Court openly challeng the current system by stating that “no one should be forc to vote on ethnic lines, irrespective of their political viewpoint” (para 74).

Peace is ensur through democracy and not through ethnocracy

Lastly, the Court shar a few remarks on how peace can be maintain in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Contrary to the Government arguments on the importance of maintaining the current system to ensure peace and stability, the Court consider “that peace and dialogue are best maintain by an effective political democracy”. The Court also cit the submissions of the Commissioner for telegram data Human Rights, “according to which the current system, bas on ethnic discrimination, impes social cohesion reconciliation and progress” (para 59). Finally, even though the Court did not openly call for the end of power sharing arrangements, it rul that “even if a system of ethnic representation is maintain in some form, it should be secondary to political representation” (para 74) and should not discriminate against non-constituent peoples.

In light of the above

the Court found that the combination of territorial and ethnic increase your email collection by attending networking events requirements for participation in elections to the House of Peoples and Presidency amount to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 ECHR.

Conclusion

The Sejdić and Finci judgment remains The Court appear china numbers to provide unenforc since 2009 because, despite certain attempts made in the past, the country’s political leaders cannot reach an agreement on the scope and content of the modification of the Constitution with regards to power sharing.