Pristina, October 15th, 2026 – The Institution of the Ombudsperson of the Republic of Kosovo, in relation to the public statement by the Kosovo Specialist Chambers dated 13 October 2026—titled “Statement by the Kosovo Specialist Chambers: Invitation from the Kosovo Ombudsperson for a Round Table”—considers it necessary to clarify its position regarding its constitutional and legal mandate for the protection and promotion of fundamental human rights and freedoms.

The Ombudsperson notes that the statement by the Specialist Chambers was published on the same day that they received the official response from the Ombudsperson, addressed to the President of the Specialist Chambers, Ms. Ekaterina Trendafilova, which set out legal arguments concerning the mandate and competencies of the Institution of the Ombudsperson. For the sake of transparency and to ensure the public is accurately informed, the Ombudsperson Institution clarifies that in its official letter dated October 13, 2026, addressed to the President of the Specialist Chambers—in which the Institution’s positions and legal arguments regarding this matter are elaborated—it reminded the Specialist Chambers, among other points, that:

The Ombudsperson Institution of the Republic of Kosovo is established by the Constitution and is entrusted with a general mandate for the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The exercise of this mandate must be assessed in accordance with the Constitution and the international human rights instruments incorporated into the constitutional order of the Republic of Kosovo.

In this context, I do not consider the exclusive responsibility assigned to the Ombudsperson’s Office in The Hague under the applicable constitutional and legal framework to constitute, in itself, an exclusion of the competence of the Ombudspersons Institution of the Republic of Kosovo to engage in the protection of human rights in matters concerning the Specialist Chambers. In my view, such an interpretation would conflate two distinct legal concepts: ‘exclusive responsibility’ and ‘exclusive competence’.

The notion of exclusive responsibility should, first and foremost, be understood as imposing a specific institutional obligation on the designated Ombudsperson’s Office to discharge its assigned function and to act as the primary and obligatory institutional mechanism when the circumstances of a particular case require its intervention. It is an obligation to act first, as opposed to a right to stop others from acting. It identifies the responsibility that the designated office is required to assume; it does not, without a clear constitutional basis, however establish that all other institutions with a constitutionally grounded human rights mandate are excluded from exercising their respective functions.

Exclusive responsibility and exclusive competence are not interchangeable legal concepts. The former concerns the specific duty assigned to an institution to ensure that a particular function is performed; the latter concerns the legal power to act to the exclusion of other institutions. The existence of the former cannot, by itself, be interpreted as establishing the latter. Any claim that the constitutional or legal framework excludes the competence of the Ombudsperson Institution of the Republic of Kosovo must therefore be substantiated by reference to the relevant constitutional provisions and their proper interpretation, rather than inferred solely from the use of the term exclusive responsibility.

This distinction is particularly important in the present context. As I understand the matter, the Ombudsperson’s Office in The Hague has not, to date, exercised its monitoring function in practice in response to the human rights concerns of persons subject to proceedings before the Specialist Chambers. This circumstance raises a legitimate question concerning the practical discharge of the responsibility assigned to that mechanism. It would be difficult to justify an interpretation under which the existence of a designated office, without the effective exercise of its mandate, would in itself prevent another constitutionally established institution from undertaking human rights monitoring within the scope of its own legal competence.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that the mandate of the Ombudsperson Institution of the Republic of Kosovo automatically supersedes or replaces the specific responsibilities assigned to the Ombudsperson’s Office in The Hague. They form complementary institutions. My position is that the existence of the latter does not, by itself, extinguish the former. The more institutions substantiating a human rights protection mandate the better the European values are maintained and the principle of plurality in a democratic society is sustained. The Ombudsperson Institution of the Republic of Kosovo retains its general constitutional mandate to protect and promote human rights in relation to the exercise of public authority within the scope of the Republic’s constitutional and legal order. In addition, I recall that, since 2021, the Ombudsperson Institution of the Republic of Kosovo has repeatedly raised concerns with the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, including through subsequent official correspondence, which has remained unanswered.

This continued silence raises serious questions about transparency and creates the perception that information may be deliberately withheld. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that the concerns and recommendations of the Ombudsperson Institution fall within its mandate, as provided for under Law No. 05/L-019 on the Ombudsperson, which includes issuing general recommendations on the functioning of the judicial system. Such recommendations are intended to strengthen institutional practices and public confidence in the administration of justice, without encroaching upon judicial independence. Judicial independence cannot be invoked to justify a lack of transparency or institutional accountability. Raising legitimate concerns and issuing general recommendations aimed at improving the functioning of the justice system should not be regarded as interference with judicial independence.

Thank you for your consideration. I remain hopeful that we can approach this matter in the spirit of constructive institutional dialogue and a shared commitment to the effective protection of human rights.