A/HRC/45/CRP.10 from exposure to lead and are more vulnerable to its toxic effects. Exposure of pregnant women to high levels of lead can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth and low birth weight, as well as minor malformations. Children are at a higher risk of exposure to lead. They are exposed to lead throughout pregnancy when lead accumulated in the mother’s body passes to the child; they absorb 4-5 times as much ingested lead as adults; they have an innate curiosity to explore the world which results in inadvertent ingestion of lead-coated objects and contaminated soil and dust; they spend more time in a single environment; they are more likely to have nutritional deficiencies which facilitate the absorption of lead; and they lack control over the surrounding environment33. According to the complainants, many babies were stillborn and there were numerous miscarriages in the camps. They reported that many women practiced self-induced abortions by drinking lice shampoo or pesticides, or mixing yeast with beer to produce miscarriages, out of fear that their children would be born with physical and mental health conditions.34 The Panel observed that medical literature was apparently consistent in stating that, once lead poisoning has been diagnosed, the most important step in treatment would be to prevent further exposure by removing the source of exposure from the environment and/or relocating patients.35 37. The complainants complained that “little or no information” was given to the IDPs for nearly six years on the health risks to which they were being exposed. Even after the release of the two 2004 WHO reports calling for the immediate evacuation of the camps, “residents were not given appropriate and understandable information about the danger to their health and the health of their children”. A number of studies and reports from different sources, for example the 2004 WHO study, were “repressed by UNMIK”. It was only in the fall of 2005, when local activists brought international attention to the issue, that the authorities began an information campaign. Until then, UNMIK not only failed to provide information, but also was responsible for providing “misinformation” and “misrepresentations” on the issue. In this regard, among others, the complainants stated that UNMIK officials circulated information that the camps’ inhabitants were responsible for their own poor health due to their informal smelting activities. 36 38. The Panel noted that UNMIK was aware of the risks stemming from the operation of the Trepca complex from the time of its arrival in Kosovo in 1999. UNMIK was also made aware of the health risks the victims had been exposed to since November 2000. 37 39. The HRAP opinion concluded that numerous articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) were violated by UNMIK. Among the human rights identified by the Advisory Panel as being violated were the rights to life, freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment, health, and respect for private and family life, an adequate standard of living, and discrimination. Numerous violations of the CRC were identified, including exploitation. The Panel also agreed that UNMIK did not provide adequate information to the complainants on the risks to their health and lives deriving from their permanent presence in the camps. UNMIK was found responsible for compromising irreversibly the life, health and development potential of the complainants that were born and grew as children in the camps, in violation of Articles 3, 6, 24, 27 and 37 of the CRC. 38 Articles 1, 2 and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) were also found to be violated in relation to female applicants. 39 40. The Panel took into consideration the burden that UNMIK had to face immediately following its arrival in Kosovo after the conflict and appreciated its efforts at reconstruction. However, it did not exclude UNMIK’s responsibility towards the complainants, especially when considering that the situation lasted for more than ten years, three of which was within 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 8 ibid., para 66. ibid., para 128. ibid., para 67. ibid., para 129. ibid., para 209. ibid., para 347. ibid., para 330.