Report on the Work of the IJPC

<strong>Report</strong> on the Work of the IJPC

TABLE OF CONTENTSI. Executive Summary...........................................................................................1II.III.IV.Introduction..........................................................................................................2Initial Developments.........................................................................................2Units within the Secretariat............................................................................5V. Methodology of evaluation, interview and recommendation..........7VI.VII.Phase I Activities and Developments.........................................................9Phase II Activities and Developments.....................................................11VIII. Phase III Activities and Developments...................................................14IX.Review Panel......................................................................................................16X. Some Noteworthy Projects Highlights.....................................................17XI.Concluding Observations...............................................................................21The IJPC and its Secretariat are funded by the Commission and the Government of the United States

<strong>Report</strong> on the Work of Kosovo’sIndependent Judicial and Prosecutorial CommissionBy Timothy Baland and Keith N. WoodOctober 29, 2010I. Executive SummaryThe recently completed merit-based process for the appointment of judges and prosecutors inKosovo, undertaken by the Independent Judicial and Prosecutorial Commission (IJPC), andconducted in accordance with European Commission standards, confirms a willingness of theinternational and national communities to confront the challenges for judicial reform in Kosovo.The need for judicial reform in this newly developing country is widely recognized, and thecompletion of the IJPC appointment process is a welcome milestone in the ongoing reformefforts.Within a few months after the establishment of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo in June of1999, UNMIK proceeded to appoint national judges and prosecutors. However, in the absence ofadequate time and resources to conduct a thorough vetting procedure, a satisfactory evaluation ofthe competence and character of the appointees was not possible at that time. Dissatisfactionwith the growing case backlog, claims of corruption and favoritism, and general incompetencewithin the court system underscored the need for an internationally-led vetting and appointmentprocedure.The law which created the IJPC envisioned a truly independent commission, free from politicalor other outside interference. Rules of procedure and operational methodologies adopted by theCommission allowed that goal to be accomplished. The 334 judges and prosecutors who wereappointed were carefully scrutinized and rated against each other, resulting in selection of thebest qualified applicant for every position. Sixty (60%) of the positions were filled by newoccupants. This represents a major transformation of the judicial system in Kosovo.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

Eight hundred ninety-eight (898) individuals submitted a preliminary application. Aftercompletion of the required ethics and entrance examinations, there were 418 eligible candidatesfor 461 positions.A statistical summary of the work of the IJPC is set out in the following chart:Phase Advertised Appointed Re-appointed New Women MinoritiesPositionsAppointeesPhase I 33 26 (78,79%) 9 (34,61%) 17 (65,38%) 11 (42,31%) 1 (3,84%)Phase II 109 86 (78,90%) 31 (36,04%) 55 (63,96%) 21 (24,4%) 6 (6,97%)Phase III 319 222 (69,59%) 92 (41,44%) 130 (58,56%) 63 (28,37%) 8 (3,60%)Total 461 334 (72,45%) 132 (39,52%) 202 (60,48%) 95 (28,44%) 15 (4,45%)2II. IntroductionThe Independent Judicial and Prosecutorial Commission (IJPC) was created as an autonomousbody of the Kosovo Judicial Council (KJC) by UNMIK Administrative Direction 2008/2, whichentered into force on January 17, 2008.The IJPC was established for “the purpose of conducting a one-time, comprehensive, Kosovowidereview of the suitability of all applicants for permanent appointments …as judges andprosecutors in Kosovo.” The preamble to the Administrative Direction affirmatively notes that itwas issued “for the purpose of setting out the provisions governing the establishment and theoperations of the IJPC and the IJPC Review Panel.”Section 2.3 of AD 2008/2 provides that the Appointment Process shall be organized in threesuccessive phases. Phase I focused on the selection of judges for the Supreme Court, andprosecutors in the Offices of the State Prosecutor and Special Prosecutor. Phase II focused on theselection of judges for the District Courts, Commercial Court, High Court for Minor Offences,and District Prosecutors. Phase III focused on the selection of municipal judges and prosecutors.This <strong>Report</strong> begins with a brief description of initial developments. Reference will then be madeto the functions and responsibilities of key units within the IJPC Secretariat. The <strong>Report</strong> will nextdescribe the activities and key events that took place during each of the three successive stages ofthe project. The <strong>Report</strong> concludes with a summation of the project’s main accomplishments.A. Memorandum of UnderstandingIII. Initial DevelopmentsOn February 25, 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding Relating to the Vetting and Selection ofJudges and Prosecutors in Kosovo was signed by representatives of the European Commission,the Government of the United States and UNMIK.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

The MOU designated the United Nations Office of Project Services (UNOPS) as the project’sImplementing Partner. The project was funded by the EC and US. The EC contribution was 5million Euros; the US contributed $880,000.The MOU provided for the creation of a Steering Committee. Its duties included: (a) makingrecommendations as to the hiring of the Project Director and international judges and prosecutorswho were being considered for appointment as Commissioners; (b) oversight and monthlyreview of the overall progress in implementation of the Project; (c) review and approval of formsand procedures developed by the IJPC.B. Selection of Director and PresidentFollowing standard recruitment procedures, Mr. Peter Bach, from Denmark, was hired asDirector, and a retired American judge, Mr. Timothy Baland, from Minnesota, USA, was hiredas President.C. First Three MonthsThe primary goals of work undertaken by the Director and President during the first threemonths were to organize for the official, public launch of the project on February 6, 2009, and toestablish and implement plans regarding IT, human resources, and the preliminary candidateelectronic application process.While Mr. Bach initially concentrated on getting the building equipped and on hiring key staff,Judge Baland focused on preparation of the Preliminary Application form. Both were activelyinvolved in various outreach activities, which included meetings with the President of KJC, theExecutive Committee of the Judges Association, the Prosecutors Association, and the Chamberof Advocates, as well as members of the Special Prosecutor’s office. A special effort, whichincluded meetings and a media event, was made to reach out to potential minority communityapplicants.Following standard recruitment procedures, the remaining four international Commissionerswere selected and appointed. The initial international Commission members were EkkehardSchulze, Germany; Andrea Venegoni, Italy; Jean Jacques Heintz, France; and Shireen Fisher,United States of America.Section 2.13 of Administrative Direction 2008/2 specifies that all candidates without exceptionwere required to pass an examination on the relevant Codes of Ethics. This provision in the lawled to a decision to administer an ethics exam to all applicants at the very outset of theAppointment Process.In order to plan for the administration of such an exam, the total number of applicants had to beknown. For this purpose, an electronic preliminary application procedure was developed. Theresulting 16-page comprehensive preliminary application form contained 25 separate sections,each covering a different aspect of an applicant’s life.3Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

4February 6, 2010 Press Conference and Official Launch of ProjectFollowing the February 6 official launch of the project, the IJPC began accepting preliminaryapplications. As a part of the electronic application process, all applicants were issued arandomly-assigned IJPC identification number, which was used for the electronic tracking andretrieval of applicant information, and preservation of the confidentiality of applicantinformation. For example, by using applicant ID numbers, the Ethics Exams were gradedanonymously, and the grades were posted on the IJPC web site without disclosure of the namesof any applicants.Concerns about the advisability of requiring applicants to submit the preliminary applicationelectronically were quickly alleviated as IJPC was flooded with applications in the first twoweeks following public announcement of the application period. A total of 898 preliminaryapplications were received prior to the April 19 application deadline.D. Creation, Administration and Assessment of the Ethics and Entrance ExaminationsThe next major task was creation, administration and assessment of the Ethics Exam. Acomprehensive report about the 2009 Ethics Exam was published on June 2, 2009, and for thatreason, only a few brief remarks will be included here. With the assistance of an internationalexam writing expert, exam questions were drafted by two IJPC Commissioners, two internationalattorneys on staff with IJPC, and four local attorneys during a week-long workshop held understrict security.Rules of procedure, instructions for applicants taking the exam, and a set of guidelines for theinternational personnel who monitored the exam were adopted, published and enforced in orderFunded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

to preserve confidentiality; protect and safeguard the integrity of the process; assure fairness; andprovide equal treatment for all applicants.The Ethics Exam for applicants with seven or more years experience was held on April 26, 2009.The ethics exam for applicants with less than seven years of experience was held on May 23.Applicants’ answer sheets, which contained no identifying information except the applicant’sIJPC ID number, were graded under strict security arrangements immediately after each exam.The results from both exams were published on the IJPC web site shortly after completion of thesecond exam.5IJPC Ethics Exam, at the Police AcademyThe Exams successfully tested each applicant’s level of knowledge of the key principles andrules in the Codes of Ethics, and the applicant’s ability to correctly apply those rules andprinciples when confronted with ethically problematic situations. As previously noted,applicants who did not pass the Ethics Exam were barred from advancing further in theAppointment Process.In addition to the Ethics Exams, all applicants who were not sitting judges and prosecutors had topass an entrance exam. This exam was administered for IJPC by the Kosovo Judicial Institute.Seventy-nine (79) applicants who had 7 or more years of legal experience passed the EntryExam. By passing the entrance exam, these applicants became eligible to apply for positions inthe appointment process. Those with less legal experience who passed became eligible to attendthe Initial Legal Education Program as a prerequisite to consideration for appointment at a latertime.A. Professional Assessment Unit.IV. Units within the SecretariatThe Professional Assessment Unit (PAU), composed of four international and six nationalattorneys, gathered information and assessed the professional qualifications of each applicant.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

Three of the international members of the PAU had previously worked on a similar judicialappointment project in Bosnia from 2002 – 2004.The duties of the PAU included: verifying that applicants met all necessary legal criteria;gathering and assessing statistical data and other job-performance information on applicants;obtaining comments about each applicant from professional colleagues and former employers;securing information from local institutions regarding each applicant’s compliance with propertylaws and court rulings on property claims; obtaining and evaluating reports from the Office ofDisciplinary Counsel regarding alleged misconduct by judges and prosecutors.Information gathered and evaluated by the PAU on each of the applicants who were invited tointerview was summarized in an individual, confidential Profile <strong>Report</strong> which was provided tothe Commission’s Evaluation Panel members prior to each applicant’s interview. National PAUofficers attended applicants’ interviews and assisted in the evaluation of the applicant’s writingability and verbal communication skills.6F. Judicial Vetting Unit.National PAU OfficersThe primary responsibility of the Judicial Vetting Unit (JVU) was to gather personal backgroundinformation about each candidate, to examine and evaluate that information, and to report itsfindings to the Commission.JVU consisted of ten international investigators and an equal number of Kosovar investigators.JVU officers worked in two-person teams consisting of one international and one nationalofficer. As the result of efforts undertaken by JVU early in the project, IJPC entered intoMemorandums of Understanding with local and international institutions (such as Interpol, theKosovo Anti-Corruption Agency, Kosovo Property Agency and the Kosovo Police Service)which allowed IJPC to solicit and obtain information possessed by those agencies about eachcandidate. MOU’s were entered into with some 31 different institutions and agencies.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

In doing their work, JVU officers met with each applicant to determine whether all requireddocuments had been received. Once this was verified, JVU created a separate file on eachapplicant. The documents were categorized, paginated, and placed in the file in accordance witha uniform Table of Contents. Any discrepancies or questions regarding the sufficiency oraccuracy of the information provided by a candidate were discussed by JVU officers with theapplicant, who was given the opportunity to correct or supplement the information.7Rules of Procedure adopted by the Commission specified that the candidate had the burden ofproof to provide IJPC with additional information or other explanatory material in an attempt tosatisfactorily address reasonable concerns about any aspect of a candidate’s qualifications,integrity or competence. JVU also conducted community checks on each applicant. Once theJVU team completed its background check, the team prepared a confidential report on eachcandidate which was submitted to the Commission prior to each candidate’s interview.1. The SettingV. Methodology of evaluation, interview and recommendationInterviews were held at the IJPC premises in Pristina. Present in the interview were three Panelmembers, one commission legal officer, and a PAU officer. Language Unit staff providedsimultaneous translation of questions and answers from an enclosed, sound-proof booth whichafforded interpreters with visual access to the interview room proper.Evaluation Panel members in interview roomFunded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

82. The FileEach applicant’s file contained four sections: Application Documents; Criminal BackgroundChecks; Community Checks; and Professional Activities. Each of these sections containedmultiple sub-sections. Applicants were allowed to review the information in the file the weekbefore the interview, and supplement the information if the candidate wished to do so.3. Evaluation GridsApplicants were evaluated on the basis of the criteria set forth in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of UNMIKAdministrative Direction 2008/2. These criteria were described in detail in Article 5 of the Rulesof Procedure Relating to the Conduct of Interviews, which were posted on the IJPC web site longbefore any interviews took place. The criteria were incorporated into an Evaluation Grid whichcontained two main sections: Integrity and Competence. Separate evaluation grids were createdto help assess each applicant’s verbal communication skills and writing ability. The writingability assessment was based upon a short writing assignment that was completed by eachcandidate immediately after the interview. Applicants for leadership positions were alsoevaluated on their managerial skills.4. Interview QuestionsStandardized interview questions were prepared for each of the criteria about which questionswere to be asked during the interview. This was done to ensure that each applicant was evaluatedon an equal basis with the other applicants for the same position. If an applicant’s answer wasunclear, inadequate or unsatisfactory, Evaluation Panel members were free to supplement thestandardized questions to secure the additional information deemed relevant to the criteria. Tohelp ensure that Evaluation Panel members shared a common understanding of what constituteda satisfactory answer to the standardized interview questions, background materials whichdescribed the key elements implicated by each of the criteria were assembled, distributed to andreviewed by panel members prior to their participation in any interviews.Evaluation Panel members in interview roomFunded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

95. Utilization of the Evaluation GridEach of the criteria in the Evaluation Grid was assigned a maximum number of points which anapplicant could be awarded for that criterion. Broadly speaking, each Evaluation Panel memberassessed each applicant’s responses to interview questions on a five-point scale: 1.Unacceptable;2. Poor; 3. Acceptable; 4. More than acceptable, and; 5. Superior. The panel members used thisfive-point scale to evaluate the thoroughness and quality of each applicant’s answers to theinterview questions, and to consider the file information that was relevant to the assessment ofeach of the criteria.The Commission decided that the maximum number of points that could be awarded for integritywas 90 points. The maximum number of points that could be earned by a candidate forCompetency was 80 points, and the maximum number of points that could be earned forManagerial Competency was 40 points.Kosovo law requires that judicial and prosecutorial nominees possess “high moral integrity.” Forthat reason, the Commission decided that an applicant had to achieve a minimum score of at least60 points on Integrity in order to be considered for appointment.Each applicant was scored separately by each evaluation panel member. Individual scores weretabulated and composite scores calculated. Applicants were then ranked from high to lowaccording to their composite scores. Applicants with the highest rankings were nominated, andtheir names and files were delivered to the KJC.A. Announcement of Phase I PositionsVI. Phase I Activities and DevelopmentsOn May 25, 2009, IJPC announced vacancies for 16 Supreme Court of Kosovo positions, 7positions in the Office of the State Prosecutor, and 10 positions in the Office of the SpecialProsecutor. The same announcement was also published in Kosovo’s major Albanian andSerbian language newspapers and posted in courthouses and other public places across Kosovo.The application form for these positions, which was accessible on the IJPC website, allowed acandidate to indicate, in the order of preference, an interest in up to four different positions.A total of 65 individuals submitted applications. Fifty-nine (59) of the applicants met all of therequired eligibility criteria. JVU background checks and PAU assessments of their professionalqualifications were then undertaken, and the candidates were scheduled and invited forinterviews that were held between August 24 and September 11, 2009. All candidates for theSupreme Court and Office of the State Prosecutor, and most of the candidates for the SpecialProsecutors’ Office, were interviewed during those three weeks. The remaining candidates forthe Special Prosecutors’ Office were interviewed in October.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

10B. Transmittal of Recommendations for Phase I positions to KJCThe names of candidates who were recommended by IJPC for appointment to the Supreme Courtand Office of the State Prosecutor were transmitted to the Kosovo Judicial Council onSeptember.18. Following completion of the interviews for Special Prosecutor in late October, the names ofcandidates who were recommended by IJPC for appointment to that office were sent to KJC onNovember 3.As required by AD 2008/2, KJC was provided with a Written Statement of Reasons in support ofIJPC’s recommendation of each candidate.There are 16 positions on the Supreme Court, one of which is President. Three of the positionson the Supreme Court are reserved for individuals from the non-majority communities ofKosovo. There are seven positions in the Office of the State Prosecutor, one of which is a ChiefProsecutor, and there are ten positions in the Office of the Special Prosecutor, one of which is aDeputy Chief.IJPC recommended 13 ethnic majority candidates for the Supreme Court, including President,and one ethnic minority candidate. IJPC recommended seven individuals, including the ChiefProsecutor and one minority, for the Office of the State Prosecutor. IJPC recommended tenindividuals, including the Deputy Chief and one minority, for the Office of the SpecialProsecutor. The same minority person was on the list for State Prosecutor and SpecialProsecutor, and one of the candidates for Supreme Court was also on the list for SpecialProsecutor. Thus, IJPC submitted a total of 29 names for 33 Phase I positions.Unfortunately, before KJC submitted any names to the President of Kosovo, one of thecandidates recommended by IJPC for the Supreme Court died, and two others, including theminority candidate, withdrew their names. KJC submitted its recommendations to the Presidentin January 2010. KJC recommended eight individuals, including President, for the SupremeCourt; four, including Chief, for the Office of State Prosecutor; and ten, including the DeputyChief, for the Office of the Special Prosecutor.These individuals were appointed by the Kosovo President in a ceremony held February 16,2010. The ceremony was attended by ambassadors from a number of countries and high rankingrepresentatives from major rule of law donors active in Kosovo.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

11A. Announcement of Phase II PositionsFebruary 16, 2010 Phase I Appointment CeremonyVII. Phase II Activities and DevelopmentsAD 2008/2 specifies that Phase II of the Appointment Process is to focus on the selection ofjudges and prosecutors at the District level, together with positions on the Commercial Court andthe High Court for Minor Offences. The vacancy announcement for these positions waspublished on July 7, 2009, on the IJPC website and in newspapers as was done with the Phase Iannouncement, with an application deadline of August 3rd. There were a total of 101 positions tobe considered during this phase of the project.Plans were made to conduct the Phase II interviews in two waves: the first wave, starting inNovember, would concentrate on the 54 judicial and prosecutorial positions located in Pristina,while the second wave, starting in early February 2010, would concentrate on the 47 positionslocated in the other four regions of Kosovo. For each wave, it was anticipated that the interviewswould be conducted without interruption (except for the Christmas holidays) for as many weeksas it took to interview all applicants.B. New international Commissioners and conduct of Phase II interviewsBy late summer 2009, it became clear that none of the originally contracted internationalCommissioners, except for Commission President Timothy Baland, would be able to make thekind of time commitment that was needed in order for Phase II interviews to be completed withinproper timelines. As a result, an effort was undertaken to recruit Reserve Commissioners.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

In November 2009, Judge Jan Erik Oja, from Sweden, and retired Judge Dennis Luebke, fromthe United States, replaced two of the original commission members. Each of them had priorexperience in Kosovo.Phase II interviews began as scheduled on November 2 nd and continued through November 26 th .The remaining Phase II interviews were delayed until January due to the replacement of twomore of the original international Commissioners. Anette Milk, a senior prosecutor fromGermany, and Horst Proetel, a retired German Judge, both of whom had extensive priorexperience in Kosovo, joined the Commission.Interviews for Phase II positions resumed on January 11 and continued through February 25. Bythat date, interviews were completed for District Court and District prosecutor positions in bothPristina and Mitrovica, and for the Commercial Court and the High Court for Minor Offences.Interviews for Phase II positions in Gjilan, Peja and Prizren resumed on March 8, and continuedthrough April 27.C. New national CommissionersAD 2008/2 provides for a gradual increase in the number of Commissioners from fiveCommissioners in Phase I, to eight Commissioners in Phase II, and ten Commissioners in PhaseIII.The additional Commissioners were required to be judges or prosecutors selected from amongthose appointed in the immediately preceding phase of the appointment process.On March 8, 2010, the President of Kosovo appointed three new members to the Commission:Enver Peci and Valdete Daka, newly appointed Judges on the Supreme Court, and Sevdije GashiMorina, newly appointed Deputy Chief Special Prosecutor. The three new nationalCommissioners were promptly integrated into the work of the Commission.D. Phase II recommendations and appointmentsPlenary sessions of the Commission were held in early April. On April 14, IJPC transmitted toKJC the names of 48 candidates who were recommended for appointment to District Court andDistrict prosecutor positions in Pristina and Mitrovica, and for positions on the CommercialCourt and High Court for Minor Offences. KJC forwarded most of those names to the Office ofthe President on April 28 th . The 14 candidates recommended by IJPC for District level positionsin Mitrovica were appointed by the President at a ceremony held on May 14, 2010.By that date, in part because some candidates were alternatively being recommended for posts ondifferent courts or in different locations, and also because the Commission had by thencompleted interviews for all District level positions, the President deferred action on theremaining Phase II appointments until recommendations for all of the remaining Phase IIpositions had been transmitted to his office.12Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

Additional plenary sessions of the Commission were held on May 11 and June 2, resulting in thetransmittal to KJC of recommendations for District level positions in Gjilan, Peja and Prizren,along with a list of additional candidates for District Court in Pristina. KJC forwarded to thePresident the names of most of the candidates recommended by IJPC, and a total of 75 newjudicial and prosecutorial appointees took the oath of office in a ceremony held at the President’soffice on June 28.E. Other Developments and Activities during Phase II1. Special Chamber of the Supreme Court and Kosovo Property Agency Appeal PanelOn November 30, 2009, IJPC published a vacancy notice for positions on the Special Chamberof the Supreme Court, and for a position on the Supreme Court’s Kosovo Property AgencyAppeal Panel. The deadline for submitting an application was December 30, 2009. Because ofthe similar nature of the type of cases heard at the Commercial Court and the Special Chamber,and because many of the individuals who applied for positions on the Commercial Court alsoapplied for positions at the Special Chamber or the KPA Appeal Panel, interviews for thesecourts were held at the same time, between January 25 and February 4, 2010. When IJPCtransmitted its Phase II recommendations to KJC in June 2010, the Commission recommendedsix individuals for appointment, one for the KPA, and the others for either the Special Chamberappeal panel or the Special Chamber trial panel.2. Re-advertisement of selected Phase I positionsBecause the initial Phase I appointments left a number of positions unfilled at the Supreme Courtand in the Office of State Prosecutor, a re-advertisement for those positions was published inmid-March, with an application deadline of April 7. Twenty-seven applications were received.14 of the applicants were found eligible and interviewed during the first week of May. On May13, IJPC transmitted recommendations to KJC of five additional individuals for the SupremeCourt, including one minority candidate, and three additional names for the Office of the StateProsecutor. Subsequently, IJPC learned that two of these individuals had decided to withdrawtheir names from consideration. In due course, KJC recommended two of the candidates for theSupreme Court and one for the Office of the Special Prosecutor, and they were appointed by thePresident on June 28, 2010.3. Re-advertisement of Special Chamber and Kosovo Property Agency Appeal Panel positionsIn late March 2010, IJPC posted on its web site a second vacancy announcement for positions onthe trial and appellate panels of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court, and the SupremeCourt’s KPA appeal panel. The deadline for submitting an application for these positions wasApril 16. Relatively few applications were submitted. Candidates who met the special eligibilitycriteria for these positions were interviewed during the week of May 11, 2009. IJPC promptlytransmitted the names of five candidates (one for KPA, and two each for the Special Chambertrial and appellate panels) to the KJC.13Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

One June 28, the President appointed both of the candidates recommended for the trial panel, andone of the candidates recommended for the appeal panel. The candidate recommended for theKPA appeal Panel was appointed on October 22, 2010.14A. Announcement of Phase III PositionsVIII. Phase III Activities and DevelopmentsPhase III of the Appointment Process focused on the selection of a total of 319 judges andprosecutors at the Municipal level. The vacancy announcement for these positions was publishedon December 17, 2009, with an application deadline of January 15, 2010. Plans were made toconduct the Phase III interviews in three waves: the first wave , starting in May, wouldconcentrate on the 116 judicial and prosecutorial positions located in Pristina, Ferizaj, Podujevo,Kaçanik, Gllogoc and Lipjan; the second wave, running between July 5 and August 5, 2010,would concentrate on the 122 positions located in the Prizren and Peja regions, includingGjakova, Istog, Deçan, Kline, Rahovec, Suharek, Dragash and Malishevë; the third wave,running between August 24 and September 8, would concentrate on the 81 positions located inthe Gjilan and Mitrovica regions, including Viti, Kamenic, Skenderaj, Vushtrri, Zubin Potok andLeposavic.B. Phase III recommendations and appointmentsA plenary session of the Commission for the first wave was held July 28. On September 2, 2010,IJPC transmitted to KJC the names of 87 candidates who were recommended for appointment toMunicipal Court, Minor Offence Court positions and Municipal Prosecutor positions in Pristina,Ferizaj, Podujevo, Kaçanik, Glogovac and Lipjan. KJC forwarded virtually all of those names tothe Office of the President in September.Plenary sessions of the Commission for the second wave were held on September 3, and for thethird wave on September 15 and 20. In early October, IJPC transmitted to KJC the names of 140candidates who were recommended for appointment to Municipal Court, Minor Offence Court,and Municipal Prosecutor positions in Prizren, Peja, Gjakova, Istog, Deçani, Klina, Rahovec,Suhareke, Dragas, Malisheve, Gjilan, Mitrovice, Viti, Kamenice, Skenderaj, Vushtrri, ZubinPotok and Leposavic.Overall, IJPC recommended a total of 227 candidates for appointment to Phase III positions.On October 22, 2010, the Acting President appointed 222 of those 227 individuals.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

15C. New National CommissionersOctober 22, 2010 Phase III Appointment CeremonyPursuant to the AD 2008/2 provision for a gradual increase in the number of Commissioners, onMarch 8, 2010, the President of Kosovo appointed two new members to the Commission:Muharrem Shala, a re-appointed Peja District Court Judge, and Jetish Maloku, newly appointedChief Prosecutor of Gjilan. They were integrated into the ongoing work of the Commission inPhase III.D. Re-advertisement of Phase II positionsPositions which remained unfilled following completion of Phase II included the positions ofPresident of District Court of Mitrovica, President of District Court of Gjilan, and President ofCommercial Court of Pristina. At the request of KJC, these positions were re-advertised on July27, with an application deadline of August 16. 24 applicants were found eligible and they wereinterviewed during the second week of September.On October 4, IJPC transmitted to KJC the names of three candidates recommended forPresident of the District Courts of Gjilan and Mitrovica, and for President of Commercial Courtof Pristina. These candidates were appointed on October 22, 2010.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

16IX. Review PanelA. Structure and ProceduresUNMIK Administrative Direction 2008/2 allows candidates who are not recommended forappointment by IJPC to file a request for reconsideration. Such requests are to be decided by athree person Review Panel. During Phase I of the appointment Process, the Review Panel was toconsist of three international members.In cooperation with the donors and UNOPS, a vacancy announcement soliciting applications forthe Review Panel was published, and applicants were short-listed and interviewed. The interviewpanel included the Deputy President of the Assembly of EULEX Judges and the Chief EULEXprosecutor. As a result of this process, two international judges and one international prosecutorwere selected for the Review Panel. This Review Panel handled all Phase I and Phase II requestsfor reconsideration.The Review Panel met in Pristina during the week of January 11, 2010, to draft and adopt Rulesof Procedure Relating to the Submission and Handling of Requests for Reconsideration. ThoseRules were posted on the IJPC web site.B. Phase I Requests for ReconsiderationIJPC sent all candidates who were not appointed to Phase I positions an official notice of thedecision made by the Commission on their application shortly after the completion of First Phaseappointments. The notification informed them that the deadline to file a written request forreconsideration was March 19, 2010. Twenty three requests were received.The Review Panel convened during the second week of May, 2010, and issued Rulings on all ofthe Phase I requests for reconsideration. Four requests were rejected because the applicant didnot meet the minimum legal criteria to be eligible for a Phase I position. Three requests wererejected because the applicant had failed the Ethics Exam. With one exception, all of the otherrequests for reconsideration were rejected for reasons articulated by the Commission in thenotification of rejection. One request was found to be grounded and that case was sent back tothe Commission for reconsideration. Applicants were notified by email of the Review Panel’sdecisions and the right to pick up a written copy of the decision from IJPC.C. Phase II Requests for ReconsiderationIJPC sent all applicants who were not appointed to Phase II positions an official notice of thedecision made by the Commission on their application shortly after the completion of Phase IIappointments. The notification informed them of the deadline to file a written request forreconsideration. Forty-four requests were received. The Review Panel convened during the weekof August 6, 2010, and issued Rulings in all 44 cases. None of these requests were found to begrounded.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

17D. Phase III Requests for ReconsiderationThe Review Panel for Phase III Requests for Reconsideration will consist of national judges andprosecutors. The reconsideration process for this Phase will be conducted in accordance with theguidelines, and procedures established by the international Review Panel.X. Some Noteworthy Project HighlightsIn practical terms, the outcomes of the Appointment Process are noteworthy. Here are somehighlights:Seven completely new members were appointed to the Supreme Court and five of themare women. The number of women on the Court has nearly tripled.All ten positions in the Office of the Special Prosecutor were filled, including one personfrom a non-majority community. The new Deputy Head of the Special Prosecutor’sOffice is a woman.Three new prosecutors, including one woman, have joined the Office of the StateProsecutor.The appointments, which include a new Supreme Court President and a new Chief StateProsecutor, were widely applauded within the legal community and by the public.New occupants were appointed to 60% of the positions.Women were appointed to 28% of the positions.The average age of the appointees is 50 years.The following charts provide detailed information on the results of the IJPC AppointmentProcess.IJPC Appointments - Phase INo Court/Pros.OfficeAdvertised Unfilled Reserved for MinoritiesPositions Positions Minorities Appointed1 Supreme Court 16 5 3 02 Chief Pros.Office 7 2 1 03 Special Pros. Office 10 0 1 1 BosnTotal 33 7 5 1 BosnIJPC Appointments - Phase IINo Court/Pros.OfficeAdvertised Unfilled Reserved for MinoritiesPositions Positions Minorities Appointed1 Special Chamber 7 4 0 02 KPA Apeal Panel 1 0 0 03 HCMO 5 0 0 04 Commercial Court 4 1 0 05 DC Pristina 18 4 2 1 BosnFunded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

6 DPPO Pristina 10 4 1 07 DC Prizren 9 0 2 2 Bosn8 DPPO Prizren 7 0 1 09 DC Peja 11 1 2 1 Egypt.10 DPPO Peja 7 2 0 011 DC Gjilan 8 2 2 1 Serb12 DPPO Gjilan 5 0 0 013 DC Mitrovica 11 4 2 1 Serb14 DPPO Mitrovica 6 1 1 0Total 109 23 13 6 - 3B+2S+1EgyptGrand Total Phase I&II 142 30 18 7 - 4B+2S+1Egypt18IJPC Appointments - Phase III1. Municipal CourtsAdvertised Unfilled Reserved for MinoritiesPositions Positions Minorities Appointed1 MC Pristina 28 2 1 or 2 1 Bosn2 MC Pristina, Grac. Branch 1 0 1 1 Serb3 MC Ferizaj 10 1 KJC to determine 04 MC Ferizaj,Strpce Branch 1 1 1 05 MC Glogovac 3 0 0 06 MC Podujevo 5 3 0 07 MC Lipjan 5 0 Perhaps 1 08 MC Kacanik 3 1 0 09 MC Prizren 12 1 1 or 2 1 Bosn10 MC Rahovec 4 0 0 011 MC Suhareka 4 0 0 012 MC Dragah 3 1 1 013 MC Malishevo 3 0 0 014 MC Peja 11 1 1 015 MC Gjakova 8 0 0 016 MC Decani 4 0 0 017 MC Istog 4 1 0 018 MC Klina 3 2 0 019 MC Gjilan 11 2 1 020 MC Viti 4 0 0 021 MC Kamenica 3 0 0 022 MC Mitrovica 8 4 1 023 MC Vushtri 6 5 0 024 MC Skenderaj 3 1 0 025 MC Leposavic 2 1 1 1 Serb26 MC Zubin Potok 1 1 1 0Total 150 28 11 to 14 4 - 2S+2B2. Minor Offence CourtsAdvertisedPositionsUnfilledPositionsFunded by the European Union and the Government of USA.Reserved forMinoritiesMinoritiesAppointed

1 MoC Pristina 15 8 2 02 MoC Ferizaj 6 3 0 03 MoC Glogovac 2 0 0 04 MoC Podujevo 4 3 0 05 MoC Lipjan 3 3 0 06 MoC Kacanik 2 1 0 07 MoC Strpce 1 1 1 08 MoC Prizren 11 2 1 or 2 1 Bosn9 MoC Rahovec 3 1 0 010 MoC Suhareka 3 0 0 011 MoC Dragah 2 1 0 012 MoC Malishevo 2 1 0 013 MoC Peja 8 2 1 014 MoC Gjakova 6 4 0 015 MoC Decani 2 0 0 016 MoC Istog 1 0 0 017 MoC Klina 2 2 0 018 MoC Gjilan 6 3 1 019 MoC Viti 3 0 0 020 MoC Kamenica 2 0 0 021 MoC Mitrovica 6 5 1 022 MoC Vushtri 3 0 0 023 MoC Skenderaj 2 1 0 024 MoC Leposavic 1 1 1 025 MoC Zubin Potok 1 0 1 1 SerbTotal 97 42 9 to 10 2 - 1S+1BAdvertised Unfilled Reserved for3. Prosecutors19MinoritiesAppointedPositions Positions Minorities1 MPP Pristina 20 4 2 02 MPP Ferizaj 7 3 1 03 MPP Prizren 12 1 1 or 2 1 Other4 MPP Peja 10 6 1 05 MPP Gjakova 4 1 0 06 MPP Gjilan 10 6 1 07 MPP Mitrovica 9 6 1 1 SerbTotal 72 27 7 to 8 2 - 1S+1 OtherGrand Total Phase III 319 97 27 to 32 8 - 4S+3B+1 OtherGrand Total Phase I, II & III 461 127 45 to 50 15 - 6S+7B+1 Oth+1EgOverall, out of 372 advertised judicial positions, 274 candidates were appointed. Overall, out of89 advertised prosecutorial positions, 60 candidates were appointed.A number of the methodologies employed by the Commission and its Secretariat can also beviewed as noteworthy. Here are some of the highlights:Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

Creation and utilization of detailed, comprehensive application formEstablishment and utilization of electronic-only application submission processCreation and utilization of randomly assigned, computer generated ID for each applicant,which was incorporated into a picture ID cardCreation of over 160 multiple choice ethics questionsOrganization, administration and grading of a mandatory ethics examination taken by 898applicantsOrganization, administration and grading of a mandatory entrance examination taken byapplicants who were not already in officeNegotiation of MOU’s with over 30 local and international institutions to verifyinformation provided by, or requested of, applicantsEstablishment and utilization of standard operating procedures for background checks oneach applicantEstablishment and utilization of standard operating procedures for completion of aprofessional assessment of each applicantEstablishment and utilization of the IJPC website for communication with applicants andthe publicUtilization of the website for announcement of vacancies and posting of interviewschedulesCreation and timely website publication of Rules of Procedure for all aspects of theappointment processCreation and web-site publication of Special Advisories relating to eligibility issuesCreation and utilization of standardized interview questions covering all relevantappointment criteriaCreation and utilization of a standard, points-based candidate evaluation formCreation and utilization of a system whereby recommendations were based on pointsbasedranking and defined criteria relating to suitability for appointmentOrganization, announcement and completion of over 650 interviews of candidatesPreparation and formal transmittal to KJC of recommendation documents and files for all365 IJPC recommended candidatesMaintenance of confidentially with regard to all private aspects of the appointmentprocess by all members of IJPC and the IJPC SecretariatEstablishment, publication and utilization of Rules of Procedure governing work of theReview PanelTransmittal by IJPC of non-selection notification letters to applicants who were notappointedTimely action by the Review Panel on all Phase I and II requests for reconsideration20Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.

21XI. Concluding ObservationsThere is reason to be hopeful that many of the rules and methodologies developed by the IJPCwill become part of the standard procedures used for the future vetting and selection of judgesand prosecutors. Three positive indicators can be mentioned:Incorporation of an IJPC-modeled ethics exam into the Preparatory Exam administeredeach year by the Kosovo Judicial Institute to prospective new judges and prosecutors.The anticipated adoption of IJPC methodologies and procedures by the KJC in its followonvetting process.Plans for the creation of an Appointment Unit within the Secretariat of the KosovoJudicial Council, to be partially staffed by individuals who worked at IJPC.In summary, it can be said that the work of the Independent Judicial and ProsecutorialCommission may well have a transformative impact on the judiciary and prosecution service ofKosovo, because of the high percentage of new occupants in so many positions, the substantialnumber of recently trained young judges and prosecutors who were appointed, and the prospectsfor institutionalization of a strictly merit-based approach to the future vetting and evaluation ofcandidates for judicial and prosecutorial office.Dated this 29 th day of October, 2010 at Pristina.Funded by the European Union and the Government of USA.