A/HRC/45/CRP.10 compensation only with respect to “claims of a private law character”, whereas the complainants’ claims amounted, in essence, “to a review of the performance of UNMIK’s mandate as the interim administration in Kosovo”. 45 47. In the same letter she indicated that “the IDP camps came into existence as a result of a major population displacement during the Kosovo conflict in 1999 and are located in the proximity of long­ established residential areas in Northern Mitrovica (…) the Mitrovica region has a long history of major industrial pollution, including lead contamination from the Trepca mine. (…) the claims asserted involve alleged widespread health and environmental risks arising in the context of the precarious security situation in Kosovo. The claims do not constitute claims of a private law character and, in essence, amount to a review of the performance of UNMIK’s mandate as the interim administration in Kosovo. Based on the framework established by the Member States, therefore, the claims are not receivable under Section 29 of the General Convention or General Assembly Resolution RES/521247. (…) Notwithstanding the above, we would note that, while having no legal obligation to do so, UNMIK has taken substantial steps to improve the condition of the IDP population. Notably, in 2000, when the Trepca mine unilaterally resumed operation, UNMIK closed the smelter down. Moreover, since 2000, UNMIK and the international community, in consultation with the IDPs representatives, as well as representatives of the local structures in Kosovo have expended considerable resources in the protection and assistance of the IDP population, including the relocation of camp residents to Osterode camp and to newly constructed housing in the Roma Mahala”.46 48. Related to the above, it is worth drawing attention to the HRAP Opinion, which considered irrelevant whether UNMIK’s actions and omissions towards the risks faced by the complainants would be attributable to UNMIK as a “UN peacekeeping mission” or as “an interim administration”. The Panel noted that, in either case, UNMIK had full legislative and executive authority in Kosovo pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) which established as a core part of UNMIK’s mandate in Kosovo, among others “Ensuring public safety and order […]” (section 9, d); “Protecting and promoting human rights […]” (section 11, j) and “Assuring the safe and unimpeded return of all refugees and displaced persons” (section 11, k). According to subsequent Regulations, UNMIK pledged to exercise its powers in Kosovo in accordance with “internationally recognised human rights standards” and the principle of non-discrimination47, and in particular, in observance of the main international human rights instruments48, which protect the right to life. In addition, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement state clearly that national de facto or de jure authorities have the primary responsibility for the protection of IDPs within their jurisdiction. In this respect, Principle No. 2 states that “all authorities, groups and persons, irrespective of their legal status”, shall respect the rights of IDPs.49 49. The Panel acknowledged that UNMIK’s interim character and related difficulties must be duly taken into account with regard to a number of situations, but under no circumstances could these elements be taken as a justification for diminishing standards of respect for human rights, which were duly incorporated into UNMIK’s mandate. The Panel considered that the same standards must apply to the substantive obligation to protect the right to life. Furthermore, as the SRSG argued that “the financial resources of UNMIK were limited to those of the Kosovo budget and human resources, in all fields, including medical and social services”, the Panel noted that the SRSG had not provided the Panel with any detailed argumentation or evidence to prove that the relocation of the complainants and the provision of adequate medical care would have been a “disproportionate burden” that UNMIK could not handle alone or in collaboration with other United Nations agencies and other bodies operating in Kosovo.50 45 46 47 48 49 50 10 ibid. ibid. see UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/1 On the Authority of the Interim Administration in Kosovo, at Section 2. see UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/24 On the Law Applicable in Kosovo. HRAP, N.M. and Others v. UNMIK, case 26/08 (26 Feb. 2016), para 220. ibid., para 221.