Home

News The Panel

How to make a complaint Documents Human Rights Declarations, Conventions and Covenants Decisions Jurisprudence Case-Law Notes

Public Outreach Campaign Videos

Annual Reports Statistics

Press Releases Newsletters Publications

LinksContact


 
 

Press Release - Human Rights Review Panel

Press Release
Number 04-2020
Date: 16 December 2020

The Human Rights Review Panel, (the Panel) held its 47th session on 11 December 2020.

The Panel deliberated via electronic means.

During the session the Panel considered seven (7) cases:

1.Case 2016-11 Petar Brakus against EULEX. On 11 December 2020, the Panel determined that EULEX had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of the complainant’s 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

2.Case 2016-17 Milijana Avramović against EULEX. On 11 December 2020, the Panel adopted a Follow-Up Decision on the implementation of the recommendations of the Human Rights Review Panel. In its Decision, the Panel noted that that the rights of the complainant in the present case are still being violated as the case of her missing relative remains un-investigated. The Panel considered that the steps thus far taken or proposed by the Mission in order to address the Panel’s findings and recommendations do not provide an adequate or effective response to the violation of the rights of the complainant. The Panel invited the Mission to give careful consideration to what possibilities exist for the Mission to contribute to that adequate response in a meaningful and effective manner, and to inform the Panel of the result of those considerations and what measures the Mission proposes to adopt to achieve that goal. The Panel decided to keep the present case open for possible further follow-up.

3.Case 2016-22 Radmila Šapić against EULEX. On 11 December 2020, the Panel declared the complaints admissible and invited the Parties to make submissions on the merit of the complaints. The complaint concerned the disappearance of a family member of the complainant and the investigation into this disappearance.

4.Case 2016-23 Q.J. against EULEX. On 11 December 2020, the Panel determined that EULEX had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of the complainant’s 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.

5.Case 2016-24 Vesko Kandić against EULEX. On 11 December 2020, the Panel declared the complaints admissible and determined that EULEX had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of the complainant’s 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.

6.Case 2016-28 S.H. against EULEX. On 11 December 2020, the Panel adopted a Follow-Up Decision on the implementation of the recommendations of the Human Rights Review Panel. In its Decision, the Panel noted that that the rights of the complainant in the present case are still being violated as the case of her missing relative remains un-investigated. The Panel considered that the steps thus far taken or proposed by the Mission in order to address the Panel’s findings and recommendations do not provide an adequate or effective response to the violation of the rights of the complainant. The Panel invited the Mission to give careful consideration to what possibilities exist for the Mission to contribute to that adequate response in a meaningful and effective manner, and to inform the Panel of the result of those considerations and what measures the Mission proposes to adopt to achieve that goal. The Panel decided to keep the present case open for possible further follow-up.

6.Case 2019-01 G.T. against EULEX. On 11 December 2020, the Panel determined, by majority, that the Mission had failed to sufficiently assess the risks to the complainant when called to testify at a war crimes trial in Serbia, and did not take adequate actions to ensure the complainant’s security. As a result, the Panel found that the Mission had contributed to a limited extent to the 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 determined that the Mission had not violated the complainant’s right to private life as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Panel made several recommendations to the Head of Mission of EULEX, including to acknowledge that its conduct had contributed to the violation of the rights of the complainant, as well as to inquire with the complainant and local authorities what measures should be taken to guarantee the safety and well-being of the complainant as result of the complainant’s testimony in Serbia.

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.

 


(C) 2010 Human Rights Review Panel