Reaction Regarding comments and recommendations from the public debate “Implementation of the Anti-Discrimination Law”(15.12.2011) held in Media Centre in Çagllavicë
The Ombudsperson institution received through the electronic mail comments and recommendations from the debate organized by Media Centre in Çagllavicë regarding implementation of the Anti-Discrimination Law.
Also, regarding the flow of debate, we were informed by the representatives of the Ombudsperson Institution who were present in this debate, namely Mr. Bogoljub Staletovič, the Deputy Ombudsperson and Mrs. Merita Syla, legal adviser. We also followed up the information placed on the web page of Medica Centre regarding transcript from this debate.
The Ombudsperson Institution reacts regarding conclusions and recommendations from this debate, which, as the debate itself, got out of the context of the topic, by shifting the focus of discussions from the issue of implementation of the Anti-Discrimination Law in accusations against the Ombudsperson, which are ungrounded and politically motivated.
In the text below, please find the remarks and disagreements of the Ombudsperson Institution with series of contradictions and inaccuracies in conclusions and recommendations that you draw from the debate held in Media Centre.
Comment d, which refers to the issue of establishing the Ombudsperson`s Office is inaccurate! Please find the chronological flow of legal base regarding establishment and functioning of the Ombudsperson at the official web page of the Ombudsperson Institution: http://www.ombudspersonkosovo.org/new/?id=1,53,53,53,a
Comment f is unclear! You did not specify neither the institution nor the type and number of complaints to which you refer as a “small number of citizens` complaints”. The institutional responsibility falls on each institution individually, just as the individual responsibility; therefore, there are nominations and separated responsibilities based on the normative acts.
Comment h draws an extreme line for the concept of discrimination and ethnic cleansing. Kosovo knows and experienced the ethnic cleansing during the war period 1998-1999. Today`s circumstances in Kosovo, as a parliamentary and democratic republic, don`t provide an argument for using such parallelisms.
Comment “k” concludes that “The Ombudsperson does not work sufficiently, neither quantitatively, nor qualitatively”. Based on what scaling parameter is made such a comment?! If such conclusion is based on the politically motivated accusations (including also discussions of some the panellists in your debate) then, this devaluates constructiveness of debate and recommendations from the debate.
Comment “l”, which refers to discrimination of Serbian community, also concludes but it does not provides arguments, except political stereotypes!
Comment “m”, is entirely senseless and inaccurate! Delays in electing Deputy Ombudspersons never had any ethnical motive. As foreseen by the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and the Law on the Ombudsperson, the Assembly of Kosovo nominates the Ombudsperson and its Deputies, among them one Deputy Ombudsperson from the Serbian community, one from the other communities and one female Deputy Ombudsperson. Voting the nomination of five Deputy Ombudspersons is done in group and there were never any contradictions regarding the Ombudsperson Deputy of Serbian ethnic background or regarding Deputy Ombudspersons from other minorities.
Also, in the attached material, three from the total number of seven recommendations from the debate on the Anti-Discrimination Law are focused on the Ombudsperson!
Recommendation “c” is generalized and it does not explain in what sense more transparency is required! The Ombudsperson works in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and the Law on the Ombudsperson. Except the work that is public, such as the recommendations, communications and other publications etc, the Ombudsperson has also responsibility related to confidentiality. The transparency of the Ombudsperson includes the managerial and budgeting aspect, and certainly the substantive aspect of work to the extent to what the interest of the complaining parties is not damaged.
Recommendation “d” appears to be senseless and illogical when you on the same time refer to “the Ombudsperson and People`s Advocate”, as you do in the entire text! We remind you that based on the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (Chapter XII) there is only one Ombudsperson (Avokati i Popullit), (this is a precise denomination in Albanian language, Ombudsman in Serbian and the Ombudsperson in English language) and five Deputy Ombudspersons, as foreseen by the Law on the Ombudsperson.
Segregation in the recommendation of a group calling for cooperation with it constitutes discrimination of its kind! Nobody has the right to privilege, as it also has no right to ignore one or another group.
The Ombudsperson Institution is opened to all citizens of the Republic of Kosovo without distinctions, aiming to prevent and identify human rights violations, as well as to promote and advance human rights and freedoms. We also welcome and believe that cooperation in the field of human rights is necessary with all those who intend to give their contribution without attempts for political abusing.
At the end, with regret we conclude that none of the comments and recommendations from the debate in Media Centre contributes to the work of the Ombudsperson and to the implementation of Ant-Discrimination Law, for which the Ombudsperson has been invited to debate.