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 01-2020
Date: 19 March 2020

The Human Rights Review Panel, (the Panel) held its 44th session on 12-14 February 2020.

On 12 February 2020, the Panel met with the new Head of Mission of EULEX, Mr Lars-Gunnar Wigemark.

During the session the Panel considered five cases:

1. Case 2016-10 Dragiša Kostić against EULEX. On 13 February 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.

2. Case 2016-12 U.F. against EULEX. On 12 February 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.

3. Case 2016-13 Miomir Krivokapić against EULEX. On 12 February 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.

4. Case 2016-16 Dobrivoje Vukmirović against EULEX. On 12 February 2020, the Panel declared the complaints admissible and invited the Parties to make submissions on the merits of the complaints. The complaint concerned the disappearance of a family member of the complainant and the investigation into this disappearance.

5. Case 2017-02 Zufe Miladinović against EULEX. On 11 December 2019, 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 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