Page - 283 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 2/2015

ALJ 2/2015 Kosovo – UNMIK accountability 283 accountability but also for the judicial institutions active in Kosovo, as well as for EULEX, on how to bring the ECHR to life in a country which incorporated the direct applicability of the convention in its constitution without being – as yet – a member state of the Council of Europe. It needs to be noted, however, that in the past the ECHR had already been used as the main reference instrument for the Kosovo Ombudsperson in cases related to UNMIK. Both of the described cases show that in spite of an elaborate system developed by UNMIK to assure a fair distribution of privatization gains to the employees by taking the possibility of dis- crimination into account, there have been deficiencies in the practice of the Special Chamber, in particular with regard to the application of the anti-discrimination law, which made the panel draw some general comments on the need to adopt positive protective measures by the authorities in cases of displaced minorities in a situation of vulnerability.33 All in all, the jurisprudence of the HRAP on discrimination cases in the context of privatization is an important contribution to the application of the ECHR in Kosovo. V. General Conclusions The Human Rights Advisory Panel of UNMIK in Kosovo is of particular interest for the development of the accountability of international organizations. The large number of opinions by the HRAP finding a violation of the ECHR shows that UNMIK indeed had a major accountability problem, which has been ignored by the United Nations for too long, maybe because this was not a unique but rather a general structural problem of the United Nations and other international institutions.34 The findings of discrimination on ethnic grounds in the two reported cases are of particular importance in Kosovo, where UNMIK from its first regulation on put a major emphasis on fighting discrimination,35 which can also be seen from the Kosovo anti-discrimination law. The procedures and practice of the HRAP prove that accountability mechanisms are possible although there is room for improvement, in particular with regard to the implementation of the opinions. If the accountability of UNMIK is to be taken seriously, it should make best efforts to comply with the detailed recommendations made by the HRAP. However, in practice it seems that there was little follow up. Victims of violations could therefore take the opinions mainly as “just” or “moral satisfaction”, but not expect a proper reinstatement in their rights. Therefore, and in view of the fact that UNMIK no longer has powers of enforcement, the opinions also address themselves through UNMIK to the Kosovar government and EULEX, which has a monitoring and advisory function and, in some respects, also an executive role to strengthen the rule of law, to take all possible steps to address the violations found. However, the attitude of EULEX has been rather disappointing as shown by the last Annual Report of the HRAP,36 which may also partly explain why EULEX does have an accountability problem itself. 33 See Fillim Guga v. UNMIK, HRAP, para. 18; Nevenka Ristić v. UNMIK, HRAP, para. 17. 34 See GUGLIELMO VERDIRAME, THE UN AND HUMAN RIGHTS: WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIANS? (2011). 35 See UNMIK Regulation 1999/1 of July 25, 1999, on the authority of the Interim Administration in Kosovo. 36 See HRAP, ANNUAL REPORT 2014, at i.