Defence Forces Review 2010

United Nations Mission In KosovoThere was no evidence to indicate that any effort had been made to take statements from theseindividuals even though details of individuals alleged to have been involved in the murderwere given to UNMIK Police by witnesses. There was also no evidence to show that anyattempt had been made to continue the investigation after September 2000 and it was alsonoted that the complainant was not apprised of the investigative process despite repeatedrequests to the UNMIK Police Commissioner for updates and progress reports on the case.The Panel, based on its findings stated that some form of reparation was necessary for thecomplainant in the Canhasi Opinion and recommended that:• The respondent should with due diligence undertake effective measures to identifythe perpetrators and that such measures must include all reasonable steps to ensurethat statements were taken from relevant witnesses;• The respondent should conduct a comprehensive review of the investigation todetermine what further steps might be taken to identify the perpetrators and bringthem to justice;• The respondent should award compensation to the complainant for his sufferingresultant upon the inadequate UNMIK police investigation into the murder of hiswife;• The respondent should take immediate and effective measures to implement therecommendations of the Panel about further developments in the case.In summary, the Panel:• Unanimously rejected the respondent’s objections as to the non-exhaustion ofremedies;• Found that there has been a violation of Art 2, ECHR in respect of the failure ofthe UNMIK Police to conduct an effective investigation into the murder of thecomplainant’s wife;• Recommended that the respondent continue with the investigation;• Recommended that the respondent provide compensation to the complainant in orderto affect reparation for the consequences of the UNMIK police violation of the humanrights of the complainant under the provisions of Art 2, ECHR.47