Promoting and encouraging respect for human rights is one of UN’s primary objectives. Many mechanisms and regulations were set up in the UN framework with the goal of safeguarding the protection of human rights, but there is a gap concerning violations attributed to the UN itself. The proposed paper explores the only human rights mechanism in existence that deals specifically with human rights violations allegedly committed by or attributed to an UN field mission: the Human Rights Advisory Panel (HRAP) in Kosovo. In the paper I analyze the HRAP’s mandate, jurisprudence and I use conclusions to discuss possible reforms and development in the UN.
The HRAP was established in 2006 in order to examine complaints concerning human rights violations attributed to UNMIK, which occurred on the territory on Kosovo between the 23rd April 2005 and 9th December 2008. In its opinions, the HRAP has explored in detail how the UNMIK administration should have fulfilled its obligations. For example, it found that DNA material of families of missing persons should have been taken in order to make DNA comparison possible in the future. Such statements can be used to establish general ways of conduct for UN field missions.
The biggest obstacle in being an effective judicial body is HRAP’s mandate: it can only make non-binding recommendations to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in charge of UNMIK. Further, an UN General Assembly resolution explicitly excludes payment for non-economic loss, such as pain or suffering arising from UN actions. Nevertheless, the HRAP has chosen to recommend taking appropriate steps towards payment of adequate compensation for moral damage. This has been repeatedly rejected by the Special Representative, on the basis of existing UN policies. Numerous UN documents describe how victims of human rights violation should be treated, and receiving compensation is one of the basic rights. I argue that victims of human rights violations attributed to the UN should not receive less assistance than individuals whose rights were breached by state authorities.
The paper explores two possibilities of accounting for UN human rights violations: establishing a separate mechanisms reviewing human rights violations attributed to the UN or using the existing mechanisms which were set up for states. As treaty bodies have reviewed reports submitted by UNMIK, there are examples of both solutions.
