Press Release - Human Rights Review Panel

Number 04-2021
Date: 30 June 2021

The Human Rights Review Panel, (the Panel) held its 51^st session on 29 June 2021. The Panel deliberated via electronic means.

During the session the Panel considered four (4) cases:

1.Case 2016-16 Dobrivoje Vukmirović against EULEX. On 29 June 2021, the Panel adopted its Decision and Findings. In its Decision, the Panel determined that EULEX had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of the complainant’s close family member and had failed to keep the complainant informed. As a result, the Panel determined that the Mission was responsible for a violation under the procedural limb of the complainant’s right to life as guaranteed by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and for a violation of the complainant’s right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Panel also determined that the Mission was responsible for failing to provide the complainant with an effective remedy in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The Panel made several recommendations to the Head of Mission of EULEX, including to inquire with the authorities what steps are being taken to investigate this case, and to emphasize with authorities the importance of victim’s rights to the truth and to be informed of the general course of the investigation. The Panel also invited the Head of Mission to reach out to the complainant with a view to finding a remedy for the violation of his rights. The Mission’s implementation of those recommendations is pending.

2.Case 2016-19 Dušan Milosavljević against EULEX. On 29 June 2021, the Panel adopted its Decision on Admissibility and Merits. In its Decision, the Panel determined that EULEX had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of the complainant’s close family member and had failed to keep the complainant informed. As a result, the Panel determined that the Mission was responsible for a violation under the procedural limb of the complainant’s right to life as guaranteed by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and for a violation of the complainant’s right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Panel made several recommendations to the Head of Mission of EULEX, including to inquire with the authorities what steps are being taken to investigate this case, and to emphasize with authorities the importance of victim’s rights to the truth and to be informed of the general course of the investigation. The Panel also invited the Head of Mission to reach out to the complainant with a view to finding a remedy for the violation of his rights. The Mission’s implementation of those recommendations is pending.

3.Case 2016-22 Radmila Šapić against EULEX. On 29 June 2021, the Panel adopted its Decision and Findings. In its Decision, the Panel determined that EULEX had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of the complainant’s close family member and had failed to keep the complainant informed. As a result, the Panel determined that the Mission was responsible for a violation under the procedural limb of the complainant’s right to life as guaranteed by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and for a violation of the complainant’s right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Panel made several recommendations to the Head of Mission of EULEX, including to inquire with the authorities what steps are being taken to investigate this case, and to emphasize with authorities the importance of victim’s rights to the truth and to be informed of the general course of the investigation. The Panel also invited the Head of Mission to reach out to the complainant with a view to finding a remedy for the violation of her rights. The Mission’s implementation of those recommendations is pending.

4.Case 2016-32 Biljana Đorđević against EULEX. On 26 March 2021, the Panel adopted its Decision on Admissibility and Merits. In its Decision, the Panel determined that EULEX had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of the complainant’s close family member and had failed to keep the complainant informed. As a result, the Panel determined that the Mission was responsible for a violation under the procedural limb of the complainant’s right to life as guaranteed by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and for a violation of the complainant’s right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Panel made several recommendations to the Head of Mission of EULEX, including to inquire with the authorities what steps are being taken to investigate this case, and to emphasize with authorities the importance of victim’s rights to the truth and to be informed of the general course of the investigation. The Panel also invited the Head of Mission to reach out to the complainant with a view to finding a remedy for the violation of her rights. The Mission’s implementation of those recommendations is pending.

The Decisions of the Panel, the Rules of Procedure and its Annual Reports are published on the website of the Panel in the English, Albanian and Serbian languages: www.hrrp.eu.

Notes to the editor;

The Human Rights Review Panel (Panel) for EULEX Kosovo, as an independent accountability mechanism for alleged violations of human rights, reviews complaints from any person claiming to be the victim of human rights violations by EULEX Kosovo in the conduct of its executive mandate. The Panel is not a judicial or disciplinary body. The mechanism will solely look into whether a violation of human rights occurred or not and formulate recommendations for remedial action. Such action does not include monetary compensation. The Panel is independent in the exercise of its functions which it performs with impartiality and integrity.