A/HRC/22/49/Add.1 VI. Constituent peoples and returnee communities as de facto minorities 64. The Independent Expert visited returnee communities in Derventa (Croat), Kotor Varos (Bosniak) and the villages of Ortijes and Laksevine near Mostar (Serb) and consulted community members about their situations as de facto minorities. She sought to learn about their issues and concerns, recognizing that the post-conflict environment entails particular and unique challenges for those from communities formerly at war. In 2010 the Government adopted a revised strategy for the implementation of annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement that provides a framework for resolving outstanding displacement issues. 65. In the communities visited, residents described mostly peaceful relations with the majority population and emphasized that they rarely faced violence or intimidation or experienced serious ethnic or religious tensions. Each community stated that it sought positive relations with other ethnic and religious groups. However, returnee communities also conveyed a sense of isolation and lack of interaction with surrounding majority communities. In some cases, such as in Kotor Varos, they are physically remote. Consequently, barriers to integration and economic, social and political participation exist that result in the relative segregation of some returnees from wider society. 66. Returnees frequently represent just a small fraction of the original, pre-war communities. In the case of Croat returnees to Derventa, the community stated that only 2.8 per cent of the original number had returned on a permanent basis, while many more return irregularly to exercise their rights to land and property or to obtain essential documents. In all communities the majority of those who had returned are older persons with stronger attachment to homes and lands than younger people, who have often only returned in small numbers and who have built new lives abroad. One resident described a ―withering, stagnating community‖—a sentiment commonly expressed by returnees. 67. Returnee communities emphasized the need for continuing reconstruction support. In Kotor Varos, residents stated that support for reconstruction would encourage greater numbers to return. They claimed that immediately after the signing of the Dayton Agreement some 376 houses were destroyed to prevent Bosniaks from returning. In Ortijes and Laksevine, Serbs stated that 1,160 Serb houses in the region still required reconstruction. In Derventa, the Croat community reported that there were 1,274 outstanding requests for reconstruction, while 1,500 houses had been reconstructed with the assistance of international donations. 21 Communities expressed frustration that the likelihood of further population return diminished with time. 68. Community members expressed concerns about the sustainability and economic viability of communities with few young people and women. Most communities are heavily reliant on small-scale agriculture. They acknowledged that some assistance, in the form of machinery and seeds, had been provided in order to make neglected land productive. However, incomes from agriculture are low and communities have requested significant additional support. One Serb resident, who earns an income by selling fruit by the roadside, stated: ―It is very difficult to get a job. I see no future for my son here.‖ 69. All communities commented that finding employment was difficult, particularly in the current financial crisis. However, the situation is particularly difficult for returnees, and discrimination plays a role. Returnees described barriers to employment in public bodies and institutions, which tend to hire candidates from majority communities. One person in a 21 16 Figures are based on interviews with community members and have not been verified