Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 — a service provided by UN OCHA

Serbia

Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (S/2019/461)

Attachments

I. Introduction and Mission priorities

  1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Security Council resolution [1244 (1999)], by which the Council established the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and requested me to report at regular intervals on the implementation of its mandate. The report covers the activities of UNMIK, and developments related thereto, from 16 January to 15 May 2019.

  2. The priorities of the Mission remain to promote security, stability and respect for human rights in Kosovo and in the region. In furtherance of its goals, UNMIK continues its constructive engagement with Pristina and Belgrade, all communities in Kosovo and regional and international actors. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Kosovo Force continue to perform their roles within the framework of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). The European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) continues its presence in Kosovo, in line with the statement by the President of the Security Council of 26 November 2008 [S/PRST/2008/44] and my report of 24 November 2008 (S/2008/692). The United Nations agencies, funds and programmes work closely with the Mission.

II. Key political and security developments

  1. Tensions between Belgrade and Pristina remained high during the reporting period, continuing to hinder prospects for the resumption of a productive dialogue and to raise concerns among local and international stakeholders about the related risks to stability on the ground. The increased tariff on goods imported from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had been introduced by authorities in Pristina in November 2018 in response to perceived attempts by Belgrade to weaken the international standing of Kosovo, remained in place. That increase resulted in threats by Kosovo Serbs to withdraw from Kosovo institutions by mid-April and prompted the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, to announce, on 16 April, that Belgrade would introduce countermeasures if Pristina failed to lift the tariff.

Following a meeting with President Vučić in Belgrade on 10 April, the Kosovo Serb representatives announced that they would take part in the elections. On 23 April, the Central Election Commission of Kosovo certified candidates from two Kosovo Albanian parties, the ruling Democratic Party of Kosovo and the opposition Movement for Self-Determination (Vetëvendosje), but failed to certify those from the Serbian List party. This was because two Commission members from Vetëvendosje abstained from voting in protest against alleged plans by the Serbian List candidates to resign the mayorship again upon re-election, in opposition to the import tariff. The decision was condemned by Belgrade, including President Vučić, who expressed concern about what he characterized as efforts by Pristina to prevent the Serbian List party from participating in the mayoral elections. The Serbian List appealed to the Election Complaints and Appeals Panel, which, on 25 April, decided in favour of certifying the Serbian List candidates.

  1. During the reporting period, persistent differences in the approaches of Belgrade and Pristina to the dialogue process inhibited the creation of conditions conducive to its meaningful resumption. While on several occasions Serbian President Vučić insisted that lifting the import tax was a condition to resuming talks with Pristina,
    President Thaçi and the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Ramush Haradinaj, argued that the import tax should remain in place unless and until there was a visible change in Belgrade policy on Kosovo. The Prime Minister further suggested that recognition of Kosovo was a “starting point” for progress in the dialogue with Belgrade, and that the acknowledgement of past crimes was a necessary condition for Belgrade and Pristina to move forward.

  2. Repeated calls by Pristina for greater acknowledgment by Belgrade of past alleged war crimes coincided with the dismissal of two Serbian List members of the Kosovo government, the Minister of Local Government Administration and the Deputy Minister of Justice, for alleged denial of such crimes. On 6 May, a recently established ad hoc committee of the Assembly of Kosovo adopted a non-legally binding draft resolution on the Serbian genocide in Kosovo, in which authorities in Belgrade are called upon “to acknowledge war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed in Kosovo during the period 1998–1999”. The Serbian List characterized it as a “move against dialogue and normalization” and an attempt to “destabilize the situation.”

  3. Meanwhile, on 7 March, following the establishment in December 2018 of the negotiating team of Pristina to the European Union-facilitated dialogue with Belgrade, the Assembly of Kosovo adopted a law on “the duties, responsibilities and competencies of the State delegation of the Republic of Kosovo in the dialogue process with the Republic of Serbia”. It also adopted a non-legally binding “platform for dialogue on a final, comprehensive and legally binding agreement on the normalization of relations between the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of Serbia” for future negotiations with Belgrade. The Serbian List did not participate in the vote. In both the law and the platform, the Assembly laid out the mandate of the negotiating team of Pristina, while at the same time introducing further stringent conditions for dialogue with Belgrade.

  4. The main opposition parties, the Democratic League of Kosovo and Vetëvendosje, criticized the adoption of the law and the platform and filed a referral to the Constitutional Court on 15 March. They argued that the law on the dialogue violated the Constitution of Kosovo. In addition, the Serbian List and the authorities in Belgrade stated that the initiatives left no room for dialogue and compromise. The Serbian leadership dismissed the negotiating platform set out by Pristina, characterizing it as an “ultimatum” to which Belgrade would “never agree”.

  5. In a separate development, on 2 February, the Assembly of Kosovo adopted the statute of the mining company, Trepça/Trepča, transforming its business units on both sides of the Ibër/Ibar river into a joint-stock company, with 80 per cent of its shares under the ownership of the government of Kosovo. That decision evoked criticism from officials in Belgrade and political representatives of Kosovo Serbs, who considered the statute to be illegitimate and drafted without consultation with Kosovo Serbs.

  6. According to the European Union Special Representative and Head of the European Union Office in Kosovo, more than two years after the launch of the first European reform agenda for Kosovo, its institutions showed some progress during the reporting period in the implementation of priority measures in the governance and economic sectors and, to a lesser extent, in the employment and education sectors. The adoption of public administration reform laws by the Assembly of Kosovo in February and the proposed amendments to the legal framework on political party and campaign financing to strengthen accountability and transparency were positive developments. Nevertheless, representatives of the international community in Pristina have criticized the government of Kosovo for exerting political influence over senior-level appointments for independent institutions, including the appointment of a convicted war criminal as the representative of Pristina in Albania.

  7. During the reporting period, Kosovo authorities took further steps in the fight against corruption. An Anti-fraud Unit was established under the National Audit Office of Kosovo on 19 March, and a new Criminal Code entered into force on 15 April, both of which are aimed at promoting effective prosecution of high-level corruption and organized crime. Acknowledging progress made by Kosovo in that area, the European Parliament voted on 28 March in favour of a non-binding resolution granting Kosovo visa liberalization and called on the European Council to do the same.

  8. Occasional incidents were reported during the period under review in ethnically mixed areas. On 19 January, a Kosovo Serb-majority school and infirmary in the ethnically mixed village of Novak/Novake in the municipality of Prizren was vandalized by unknown perpetrators. On 2 February, a memorial plaque commemorating the disappearance of two Serbian journalists on August 1998 in the municipality of Rahovec/Orahovac was damaged by a Kosovo Albanian, who was subsequently arrested by the Kosovo police and admitted the crime to the prosecutor.
    On 12 April, an explosion occurred in the vicinity of Jasenovik i Poshtëm/Donji Jasenovik in Zubin Potok municipality in northern Kosovo, damaging two vehicles and a business office.

  9. Kosovo institutions have advanced efforts to prevent violent extremism. On 13 March, on the basis of an international arrest warrant, Kosovo police apprehended a foreign citizen on suspicions of terrorism. On 4 April, the Special Prosecution of Kosovo filed an indictment for “incitement to commit a terrorist offence” against a Kosovo Albanian who was suspected of sharing materials on social media in support of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh). The same individual had also allegedly used social networks to issue threatening messages against the Prime Minister of Kosovo. On 20 April, with the support of the United States of America, 110 people were repatriated from the Syrian Arab Republic to Kosovo: 74 children (including 9 unaccompanied minors or orphans), 32 women and 4 men. All 32 women are under investigation by the Special Prosecutor’s Office on suspicion of having joined or participated in a foreign army or police force and are currently under house arrest, together with the children. The four men and one minor are being detained in a high-security prison while investigations are ongoing; they are awaiting indictment and trial on the grounds of having joined or participated in a foreign army or police force.