Article 5 of the Ant-discriminatory Law determines general conditions for justifying disparate treatment as well as the list of concrete exemption from the principal of equal treatment. Considering the complexity of this topic, the question is do decision makers in this cases have relevant knowledge and information about the implementation of Article 5 of this Law.

Although the awareness of dicrimination is widespread, there is only a few tools that can be used to fight it. Rarre finance support can give visible results and ensure concrete protection. As one of a few tools aginst dicrimination, stratigic litigation in past couple of years became more present in Bosnia and Herzegovina, at least among expert debates.

Commentary written by Mario Reljanović aims to show the key parameters for proving mobbing in civil proceedings, which is of great importance since their correct understanding and application in civil proceedings may guarantee better legal practice in this field.

Analitika’s new Commentary covers the complex issue of discrimination on the territorial basis. The Commentary points that the instruments providing protection against discrimination generally need to be flexible enough to be able to respond to changing circumstances and new forms of differential treatment of citizens, but also that judicial authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina yet have to come up with the right answers to the many and complex questions raised in terms of territorial affiliation as one of the grounds of discrimination.

Analitika's new Commentary aims to highlight the key specifics of other forms of discrimination and their proving, which judges, but also the representatives of the victims of discrimination, should have in mind in the court proceedings for protection from discrimination.

The key improvement when the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination was adopted was the provision according to which the burden of proof (that discrimination did not occur) transfers to the defendant if the plaintiff manages to demonstrate the existence of assumption or likelihood of discrimination in a concrete case. However, available reports on anti-discrimination court proceedings in Bosnia and Herzegovina indicate that domestic courts introduce very high threshold plaintiffs must reach in order to shift the burden of proof on the defendant, or even completely ignore this important principle by applying general rules of civil procedure in cases related to discrimination as well, despite the more favorable provision of the LPD.

Violence against members of the first Sarajevo Queer Festival was the reason for the Organization Q to refer the appeal to the Constitutional Court of BiH because of the failure of the authorities to provide adequate measures for the protection of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of BiH and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but also because of inefficient investigation and identification and sanctioning of offenders.

The author Ivanković-Tamamović, using the case of Janja Martina Katović against the Glamoč municipality, points at the inaccurate implementation of discrimination legislation and rules of proving in antidiscrimination cases of the Supreme Court of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The commentary “Continuing Discrimination with Judicial Means: Logical Acrobatics and Absurdities of the Second Instance Decision in the Case of ‘Two Schools under One Roof,’“ written by Aleksandra Ivanković-Tamamović, offers an analysis of the recently adopted decision of the Cantonal Court in Mostar by which the first instance judgment of the Municipal Court in Mostar from 2012, which established that organizing lectures based on the principle of ethnicity discriminated against children in the divided schools of the Hercegovina-Neretva Canton, was annulled and the complaint itself was dismissed on procedural grounds.