subsidiary legal acts declared as the supreme law of the land, prevailing over any domestic laws in force. Whatever law a court in Kosovo may apply is of little importance, however, as UNMIK will choose whether or not to permit the execution of any resulting judgment. It has refused to do so, for instance, in a case relating to a job recruitment conducted under direct UNMIK control and authority (see pp. 20-21).
Lack of Respect for the Rule of Law
Residents of Kosovo must overcome a number of obstacles in order to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms. One of the foremost of these obstacles is the lack of legal protection prevailing in the province, stemming in large part from the inaccessibility and the lack of clarity in the applicable law.
An early UNMIK Regulation provided that all UNMIK Regulations would be published in English, Albanian and Serbian. Three years later, important UNMIK Regulations remain in English only, although efforts have been made to accelerate translations into Albanian and Serbian. Delays in publishing laws considered by UNMIK to be in force remain a problem, even in the event that publication on the internet can be considered adequate where a large proportion of the population does not have access to computer services. As noted above, the complex structure of the applicable law causes confusion in the population and the courts. The confusion is exacerbated by the inclusion in many UNMIK Regulations of a provision declaring that the new Regulation supersedes 'any existing law with which it is inconsistent', often in Regulations that are written in quite general terms. Administrative Directives are used as tools for repairing gaps in UNMIK Regulations, leaving the applicable law unclear even to those intended to implement it. International standards governing lawfulness thus continue to be flouted, as the 'applicable law' remains inaccessible and unforeseeable and fails to protect individuals against arbitrary action by the state.
Certain categories of human rights complaints have been entirely removed from the jurisdiction of the courts and placed under the control of administrative authorities operating under UNMIK control. Their decisions cannot be appealed to any judicial body. In some circumstances, however, UNMIK and KFOR have at least nominally recognised that individuals who have suffered an injury caused by UNMIK or KFOR should be able to ask for compensation or damages. The response has been to establish various types of `commissions' or `claims offices' under the auspices of UNMIK and/or KFOR, through which individuals may theoretically claim such damages or compensation. However, virtually no information is publicly available about the existence, mechanisms or procedures of these commissions or claims offices. To date, no information has been publicised about the number of claims settled or compensation or damages awarded by any of them.
Individuals in Kosovo have been detained without any judicial decision or control, either by the SRSG or by the Commander of KFOR, both of whom exercise total power in this regard. Recommendations by the Ombudsperson and others that the legal regime governing detentions be returned to judicial authority and control, in accordance with all relevant international human rights standards, have been ignored (see pp. 11-15). In any event, Regulation 2000/38 does not permit the Ombudsperson to exercise any authority to address KFOR regarding their parallel unlawful practices in this regard.
Kosovo has one of the highest concentrations of military and police personnel in the world, some estimates placing the figure as high as one soldier or police officer for every forty residents of Kosovo. Extensive international resources have been dedicated to the recruitment
2
