Eulex website hacked

We do it because we can and we will continue to do so. The year that the world again gave Albanians what they demanded, and as stewardship was about to pass to EULEX, we got this:. An unknown Albanian group on Thursday claimed responsibility for a bomb attack on a European Union office in Kosovo earlier this month and warned of attacks against the Serb minority. The U. Weather Service? Not only that — police cordoned off the area and halted the reconstruction.

This behaviour is unacceptable by any standards. Even if Eulex must remain status-neutral, as Ian Bancroft has recently commented on Cif , and disregard the constitution of the Republic of Kosovo , it still must protect the right of refugees to return home, as stated in Security Council resolution But it does not do that for the Albanians in northern Kosovo, because it lacks control on that region.

This mix of double standards and arbitrariness dangerously legitimises a way of thinking about the law as a subjective artifice in the hands of the powerful. The fight is against power, and its artifice is the first victim. The radicals who damaged Eulex cars do not see themselves as vandals, but as the only possible opposition to power. They are a minority on this particular choice of tactic, but the majority agrees with them on one main point: Eulex, Unmik, the ICR and even the Kosovo Force are an oppressive colonial system.

International officials repeat their refrain: "We are here for your own good". This is precisely the benevolent attitude that all locals find offensive. The youth who last week hacked the Eulex website wrote: "We invited you here to help us, not to decide for us … as we welcomed you, we can also tell you 'so long'.

As Mitrovica and northern Kosovo remain a flashpoint, any provocation there could spark mass protest with unforeseeable consequences. Judge Simmons demanded access to the investigation file. When Judge Simmons was eventually given access to the file, he discovered it contained only one document and that was the notification informing him the investigation had been closed.

The persons in charge of those disciplinary proceedings were the very persons Judge Simmons had accused of serious misconduct. The disciplinary board comprised three members only one of whom was a judge. Another member of the board was a Logistics Officer who was subordinate to the very persons Judge Simmons had accused of serious misconduct.

The European Court of Human Rights has made it very clear in its decisions that in disciplinary proceedings against a judge, a majority of the board should be judges. In the case brought against Judge Simmons, only one member was a judge. However, that was not the only abuse of the disciplinary process.