Seite - 284 - in Austrian Law Journal, Band 2/2015

ALJ 2/2015 Wolfgang Benedek 284 One particular limitation of the procedure is the lack of any compensation scheme provided by UNMIK for victims of human rights violations found by the HRAP.37 While this is a general problem of UN missions, which only provide compensation ex gratia,38 in the case of UNMIK the establish- ment of an accountability mechanism in the form of the HRAP has raised legitimate expectation from the side of victims of violations to see these violations addressed. However, as noted by the HRAP in its 2014 report, “the Panel does not see any meaningful activity undertaken by UNMIK in response to its recommendations [...] due to UNMIK’s inertia, there has been no redress for the complainants. As such they have been victimized twice by UNMIK […]”.39 This is a bitter conclusion before the forthcoming termination of its activities. What is remarkable is that the main standard of accountability is the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, which is part of the consti- tutional law of Kosovo although Kosovo is not (yet) a member of the Council of Europe. Accordingly, UNMIK as a United Nations mission is held accountable for not respecting regional human rights law. However, it was UNMIK itself, which by regulation decreed in 1999 made the ECHR (next to other international human rights conventions) applicable in Kosovo.40 But until today, Kosovars have no way to file complaints at the European Court of Human Rights, thus lacking a remedy every European citizen is granted.41 The “jurisprudence” of the HRAP, which orientates itself closely towards the European Court of Human Rights, can be considered as an important contri- bution to closing that gap. However, its obvious temporary and substantive limitations also limit the potential of this contribution. Furthermore, the HRAP is in the process of winding up its activities. No doubt it leaves an important legacy of case law on human rights in Kosovo, from which the Kosovar judiciary could be inspired with regard to applying the European Convention on Human Rights. 37 HRAP, ANNUAL REPORT 2014, at para. 77. 38 Compare GERHARD NIEDRIST, THE NECESSITY OF A HUMAN RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE UNITED NATIONS (2014), http://works.bepress.com/gerhard_niedrist/1. 39 HRAP, ANNUAL REPORT 2014, at para. 79. 40 See UNMIK Regulation 1999/24 of Dec. 12, 1999, on the applicable law in Kosovo. 41 See Bernhard Knoll, Rights Without Remedies: The European Court’s Failure to Close the Human Rights Gap in Kosovo, 68 HJIL, 2008, at 431.