This study examines the impact of the term “constituent peoples” in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the country’s electoral law th-rough the lens of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) Kovačević de-cision. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an annex to the Dayton Agreement signed on December 14, 1995, which ended the Bosnian War, dis-tinguishes between the constituent peoples—Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats—and the country’s other citizens (those belonging to ethnic minorities, those who do not declare affiliation with any ethnic group due to marriage, mixed parenta-ge, or other reasons). This distinction prevents citizens outside the “constituent peoples” from candidacy in the presidential elections and the elections for the House of Peoples, the upper chamber of the country’s legislature. Slaven Kovače-vić, a political scientist and advisor to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovi-na, filed a petition arguing that these provisions violate several supranational laws, particularly the prohibition of discrimination outlined in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court found the applica-tion admissible and issued a ruling of violation. The Court emphasized that the current provisions not only exclude certain citizens from the House of Peoples based on their ethnic background but also elevate ethnic considerations above political, economic, social, philosophical, and other considerations and/ or rep-resentation. This, in turn, exacerbates ethnic divisions within the country and undermines the democratic nature of the elections. The choice to frame the title as “Footsteps of Change?” rather than “Footsteps of Change” is a deliberate one. The study goes on to explore whether this ruling indeed signals a change in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Given that previous ECtHR rulings on the same issue, notably the Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina decision, have not yet been implemented, the study examines the substantive differences between these earlier rulings and the Kovačević decision. Finally, the study dis-cusses whether this decision could serve as a driving force for Bosnia and Herze-govina to amend its own Constitution, taking into account statements from the Office of the High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina (OHR) within the context of sovereignty issues.