Witness Protection and RelocationBetter Witness ProtectionPARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED
The unwillingness of many people in Kosovo to cooperate with the police in criminal investigations remains a critical impediment to the accountability for crimes, including, but not limited to, organized crime and inter-ethnic and political violence. The most important factor is the systemic inability to protect those witnesses who are willing to testify.63 Given Kosovo’s size and social structure, witness relocation outside Kosovo may be the only effective way to protect witnesses in the most sensitive cases. But much greater use of witness protection measures short of relocation could bring real benefits in other cases. It is clear from discussions with representatives from the UNMIK DoJ, the European Union, and donor governments, that improved witness protection has become a priority for donors. Funding from various donors has meant that witness protection equipment (“witness boxes,” video links, voice changing devices, etc) is now available in all main courts in each of the regions.64 But despite the wide range of measures currently available to conceal witnesses’ identity, a November 2007 joint report from the OSCE and the US Office in Pristina concluded that frequently prosecutors do not request and judges do not use such measures65 This phenomenon may be explained by an insufficient awareness among police, prosecutors, and judges of the effect that witness protection measures can have on the outcome of the proceedings.66 Witness protection continues to suffer from lack of a coherent legal framework. A comprehensive witness protection law is currently being developed, in order to provide clear guidelines, rules of procedure, and to assign responsibilities to all parties involved in witness protection. At this writing, there is no coherent budget for witness-protection-related expenses, with funding channeled through various institutions’ budgets (including the KPS and UNMIK), which diminishes its efficiency and causes unnecessary delays. Human Rights Watch’s interlocutors have emphasized the continued importance they attach to appropriate handling of sensitive data. However, one international official noted that occasional disclosure of the identity of protected witnesses to the local press (which often irresponsibly publicizes the identity of witnesses) still results from careless file handling by the courts and other administrative structures.67 According to a local prosecutor Human Rights Watch spoke to, existing procedures are “porous” enough to allow for a wide range of persons to deal with files, which increase the risk of inadvertent disclosure of witnesses’ identities or other confidential case information.68 Witness Relocation Arrangements with States outside the RegionNOT IMPLEMENTED
For some witnesses, relocation outside Kosovo may be the only viable option. Nevertheless, cases of successful witness relocation remain rare. Those arranged to date relied on ad hoc negotiations between the UNMIK Witness Protection Unit and the governments in question.69 Foreign governments have been reluctant to accept witnesses from Kosovo, in part because of wider issues relating to their migration and asylum policies. Kosovo’s unusual legal status has also complicated efforts to reach agreement with other governments to accept witnesses.70 Another problem is the lack of adequate financial resources to transport and then to support the relocated witnesses, resulting in the hosting states assuming financial responsibility.71 The greater clarity on Kosovo’s status may facilitate better coordination on this issue. But fundamentally, it requires political will on the part of the US, EU, and other governments to accept witnesses in their territory, and to provide adequate financial support to the witness relocation program. 63 Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with a national judge, December 19, 2007, and with a national prosecutor, January 22, 2008. See also, Human Rights Watch, Not on the Agenda, p. 37. 64 Human Rights Watch interviews with officials of all main international institutions and country offices revealed that a wide range of initiatives have been taken to address the insufficient witness protection, and the issue has been prioritized by international donors. 65 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and US Office, “Witness Security and Protection in Kosovo: Assessment and Recommendations,” November 2007, http://www.osce.org/item/27753.html (accessed November 21, 2007). 66 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with an OSCE official, November 19, 2007. 67 Human Rights Watch interview with an OSCE official, Pristina, July 11, 2007. 68 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with a national prosecutor, January 22, 2008. 69 Human Rights Watch interview with an UNMIK Department of Justice official, Pristina, July 18, 2007. 70 Ibid. 71 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, “Review of the Criminal Justice System in Kosovo,” December 2006, http://www.osce.org/documents/mik/2006/12/22703_en.pdf (accessed November 19, 2007), p. 11. |