No description available.

The situation in Bosnia and Hercegovina escalated in 1992 and resulted in a war which lasted until 1995, when the end of the war was marked by the signing of the Dayton agreement. The war consisted of conflict between the different groups within the country, with ethnic cleansing as one of the methods being used. In order to keep the peace in the region, the United Nations established the United Nations Protection Force in Yugoslavia. The UNPROFOR were at first meant to keep the peace within Croatia, but as the war broke out in 1992, parts of the force were repositioned to Bosnia. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate whether the UN and UNPROFOR managed to reach the goals set for the intervention in the town of Srebrenica, which was the first city in Bosnia to receive the status as a ”safe area”. In order to establish wheter the goals were met and the effects they had, the instrument of analysis consists of two evaluation models. The goal of the essay is to reach an understanding of the goals of the intervention and to provide with an analysis which can provide with an understanding for this, and perhaps also other interventions conducted by the UN.   In the final part of the essay, the presented material is discussed and analyzed in order to reach the purpose of the study. Concludingly the study finds that the goals for UNPROFOR in Srebrenica were not met.

Syftet med studien är att undersöka om vittnesbenägenheten skiljer sig åt mellan ett “särskilt utsatt område” (Nydala, Hermodsdal, Lindängen) och ett “tryggt område” (Västra Hamnen) i Malmö samt om benägenheten påverkas beroende på vilken brottstyp som bevittnats. Vidare syftar studien även till att undersöka huruvida kännedomen skiljer sig åt mellan områdena om att det råder allmän vittnesplikt och det stöd som finns att tillgå i en rättsprocess. Studien använder sig av såväl kvantitativ som kvalitativ data, detta i form av enkäter samt intervjuer. Totalt besvarade 162 individer enkäten och intervjuer genomfördes med totalt sex individer där både män och kvinnor deltog. Intervjuerna analyserades utifrån en tematisk analys vilket presenterades i gemensamma teman. Resultaten visar på att det råder skillnad i vittnesbenägenhet områdena emellan. Den återkommande uppfattningen gällande bidragande faktorer till detta var medierapportering, rädsla för repressalier och låg tillit till myndigheter. Majoriteten var eniga gällande att rädslan upplevs vara högre när det kommer till gängkriminalitet eller annan grövre brottslighet. Kännedomen om den allmänna vittnesplikten samt vittnesstödsverksamheten skiljde sig även det åt mellan områdena. Majoriteten av respondenterna uppgav däremot att de var medvetna om att det råder allmän vittnesplikt i Sverige. Detta resultat överensstämmer inte med den information som framkommit under intervjuerna som menade att kunskapen är bristfällig och i en del fall helt obefintlig. Majoriteten var öppna för att använda sig av vittnesstöd, det förekom en överrepresentation vad gäller kvinnor. / The aim of the study is to examine if the propensity to testify differs between a “particularly vulnerable area” (Nydala, Hermodsdal, Lindängen) and a “safe area” (Västra Hamnen) in Malmö and if the propensity is affected depending on the type of crime. The study also aims to investigate whether the knowledge differs between the areas where there is a general duty to testify and the support that is available in a legal process. The study uses both quantitative and qualitative data, web surveys were used to receive knowledge from a public perspective. A total of 162 individuals answered the survey. A total of six interviews took place with relevant participants. The interviews were analyzed on the basis of a thematic analysis, which was presented in common themes. The results prove that there is a difference in the tendency of witnesses between the areas. The recurring perception for this was media reporting, fear of reprisals and low trust in authorities. The majority agreed that the fear is perceived to be higher regarding gang related crime or other more serious crime. Knowledge of the general duty to testify and the witness support service also differed between the areas. The majority of the respondents, on the other hand, stated that they were aware that there is a general duty to testify in Sweden. This did not correspond with the information from the interviews, which entailed that the knowledge was deficient and, in some cases, completely non-existent. The majority were open to using witness support, there was an over-representation of women.