CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

VĚRA HONUSKOVÁ CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ with local governments meant a better position for negotiations over a place where people might return. 57 The return was voluntary; people often returned to the places which were reconstructed by the Czech state. They were given a repatriation kit, including some money, all their belongings from the Czech Republic were moved there, and the costs were covered by the Czech state. c. Evaluation of the temporary refuge The Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic later supported a report which evaluated the Czech experience with the temporary refuge. The report found that those who had returned back did not feel happy. At the same time, they did not want to return to the Czech Republic. Voluntary return was hard for a large number of them, the evaluation mentions that 32% of returnees felt discriminated against. 58 Their position on the labour market was difficult, access to social assistance and health insurance was also harder due to their previous stay abroad. Acceptance by local people appeared to be an important obstacle as 72% of returnees did not return back to their homes (they resettled back in the region where they came from). 59 The report mentions several shortcomings in the implementation of temporary refuge programme in the Czech Republic. 60 One of them was the lack of information regarding places to which people were returning. The returnees did not know what to ask about and what to care about. Their main interest before the departure was the safety of the place they were moving to. That is expected, as they fled an armed conflict and they still remembered it. They were provided enough information about the safety, but shortly after they came back into their new homes, their interest moved to social and labour issues which they had no information about. Another shortcoming that appeared was the limited access to education by children. There were places where the schools were far away from the places of residence. 61 The Czech Republic cooperated with the countries that people had returned to during the conflict through the means of humanitarian aid. The collaboration continued even after the conflict had finished. The humanitarian aid was systematic, not a one-time try; it was carefully planned and shaped to respond to the needs of the region. Bosnia and Herzegovina was a long-term target country for humanitarian aid. The good contacts allowed the Czech state to prepare the return of former beneficiaries of temporary refuge. And, although Bosnia and Herzegovina was a third country, not a home country, for many of the returnees, it was still acceptable for them as a place of durable solution as they had a place where to return. From the today’s point of view the project seems to be both successful and unsuccessful. On the one hand one can say that the state’s intent to give only a temporary shelter was not fulfilled – because only a small number of the beneficiaries returned back to their home countries. That is, stricto sensu , true. The programme was also very costly. On the other hand, it should be noted that the issue is multifaceted, pros and cons cannot be measured only through numbers and financial means. There are aspects through which the programme can be measured as a successful one. Firstly, the expectations were clearly formed 57 See PILÁT WHALEN…, op. cit., p. 13. 58 See PILÁT WHALEN…, op. cit., p. 2. 59 See PILÁT WHALEN…, op. cit., p. 2. 60 See the report prepared by PILÁT WHALEN. 61 The report offered a quick and easy solution for it: to send a humanitarian aid in the form of a school bus there.

250