A/HRC/25/49/Add.1 6. The Dayton Agreement created three separate autonomous regions, namely, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Brčko District, while the Washington Agreement, signed in 1994, established the canton system at the level of federation. The Dayton Agreement did end the war but, in the process, together with the Washington Agreement, it established a complex political and administrative structure that has resulted in serious challenges for consensus-building and decision-making today. The country has 14 administrative jurisdictions (State level, two entities, Brčko District and 10 cantons in the Federation), and a plethora of ministries and governmental agencies. As stressed by the High Representative responsible for overseeing the implementation of the civilian aspects of the Agreement, between January and October 2013, not a single new law was adopted at the level of the State.2 The Special Rapporteur hopes that current discussions on possible constitutional reform at the federation level will lead to a simpler and more efficient governance system, at least in that entity. 7. The lack of consensus, especially between the two entities, regarding the fate of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the main contentious issue underlying current difficulties. The absence of a shared perspective on the future is grounded in deep disagreements regarding the past, in particular events of the two world wars and the 19921995 war. Divergent viewpoints of the past are used to justify different objectives in the present and the future. Bosniak political elites present the contemporary State of Bosnia and Herzegovina as the natural result of historical processes and essential for preventing violence against the Bosniaks and the narrowing of their living space. Likewise, Serbian political elites present the creation of Republika Srpska in 1992 as also rooted in past events and necessary for protecting the Bosnian Serb population against violence and for protecting their interests. Bosnian Croat parties also use historical events to legitimize their battle for more rights in similar fashion. “Bosnia and Herzegovina is confronted – like no other country – with the coexistence and competition of three official memory narratives and ethno-national identity constructions.”3 8. This disagreement among political elites on the fate of the State results not only in direct challenges in carrying out State responsibilities, as provided for under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina; it also impedes the effective functioning of State institutions. It does not help that, in addition, some representatives of the Republika Srpska openly advocate for its independence and the dissolution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.4 9. Cultural institutions have been hijacked in this discussion, as exemplified by the current uncertainty surrounding the fate of seven major cultural institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina: the National Museum, which had to close in 2012, as well as the National and University Library, the National Gallery, the Museum of History, the Film Archives Kinoteka, the Library for the Blind and Visually Impaired Persons, and the Museum of Theatre and Literature. These institutions were created by the pre-war Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but were never accepted by all as the official State institutions after the conflict. 10. The Republika Srpska has established its own “mirror institutions”, such as the Peoples’ and University Library of Republika Srpska, the Library for the Blind and Visually Disabled, the Kinoteka in Pale and the Museum of Contemporary Art, sometimes upgrading former branches of one of the above-mentioned seven institutions or pre-existing 2 3 4 4 S/2013/646, annex, para. 31. Nicolas Moll, “Fragmented memories in a fragmented country: memory competition and political identity-building in today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Nationalities Papers, vol. 41, No. 6, November 2013. S/2013/646, annex, paras. 6 and 18.