A/HRC/25/49/Add.1 83. The Special Rapporteur met with the two entity-level institutes for the protection of monuments, and appreciated their good cooperation. There was widespread discontent, however, regarding the level of cooperation between the Commission and the two institutes, meant to work together, and the delimitation of their respective competencies. The Special Rapporteur believes that disagreement stems from different objectives and approaches; the Commission aims to foster post-war reconciliation by designating property deemed to symbolize a people’s identity as national monuments; its reconstruction work is a means of reparation for past wrongs. By contrast, the two institutes seek to preserve authentic monuments with high universal value that merit classification as national monuments. 84. Consequently, considerable criticism was levelled against the Commission for identifying undeserving property as national monuments. The surfeit of monuments identified as “national”, it was felt, obstructs much needed development schemes. Moreover, the protection measures taken by the Commission are considered to be arbitrary and excessive, while local communities are not always aware of their full ramifications. More than 700 properties have been designated national monuments, creating difficulties in setting priorities and mobilizing funds. Some consider that the Commission has gone beyond its competencies, creating serious concerns, given that Commission decisions are final and not subject to appeal. 85. Given the lack of trust in the country, such criticism, even when well-grounded, may be interpreted as an attack against communities, a denial of the destruction that occurred in the past, and the pursuit of the war through other means. This is particularly the case when the institutes are mere departments of an entity’s ministry, and therefore not seen as independent bodies. 86. The Commission informed the Special Rapporteur that it consults with the concerned communities and offers the option of reconstructing the property exactly as before; reconstructing in a larger or altered format; constructing something with a different function; or not reconstructing it at all. Consultations are welcome and, according to the Commission, in about 90 per cent of cases, people wish to reconstruct the same monument. Should communities select a modified structure, however, it is no longer a case of reconstruction but part of a new landscape. 87. In any event, be it through the Commission’s process or otherwise, many people expressed deep concern that a new cultural landscape is being built in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with taller minarets and steeples in bigger mosques and churches, marking territories and competing for predominance. 2. Memorials and memorialization processes 88. The issue of memorials has caused much controversy in the country.30 Memorialization activities are “characterized by a (mono)-ethnic approach, an insufficient institutional coordination, the lack of adequate and programmatic regulations, and the lack of conceptual understanding of the issue of memorialization in the context of transitional justice”.31 One major concern raised by stakeholders related to the frequently encountered “credit and blame” approach. 89. Memory entrepreneurs are diverse: numerous associations and private actors erect their own memorials, on private or public land, with or without prior authorization, and 30 31 18 A/HRC/16/48/Add.1, para. 48. Dragan M. Popović, The Notion of Memorialisation and A New Approach to Memorialisation Practice in Bosnia and Herzegovina, UNDP, 2013, p. 6.