• Standpoint of the Human Rights Chamber

Pursuant to its permanent case-law, the Human Rights Chamber maintains that it is not called upon to review whether the decisions on removal from office are in accordance with the rights defined under Annex 6. Pursuant to Articles II.2 and VIII.1 of Annex 6, the Human Rights Chamber is (only) competent to establish whether there were violations of Annex 6 within the field of responsibilities of the Parties under Annex 6.³⁴¹¹ According to the standpoint of the Human Rights Chamber, the authorities of the High Representative are based on the GFAP and on various resolutions of the UN Security Council.³⁴¹² The Human Rights Chamber particularly points to Article I.2 of Annex 10, wherein it is stated that the Parties requested the designation of a High Representative, to be appointed consistent with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, to facilitate the Parties’ own efforts and to mobilise and, as appropriate, coordinate the activities of the organisations and agencies involved in the civilian aspects of the peace settlement by carrying out the tasks set out in Annex 10 as entrusted by a U.N. Security Council Resolution.³⁴¹³ Pursuant to Article V of Annex 10, the High Representative is the final authority in theatre regarding the interpretation of the Agreement on the civilian implementation of the peace settlement”.³⁴¹⁴ The Resolution 1031(1995) of the UN Security Council endorses the establishment of a High Representative. The Human Rights Chamber also points to the Bonn powers: “it is beyond doubt that the actions of the High Representative or IPTF, are not subject to any review in relation to the carrying out of their functions under the General Framework Agreement. For this to be the case, the General Framework Agreement would have to provide specifically for any such review.³⁴¹⁵ The actions complained of were carried out by the High Representative in the performance of his functions under the General Framework Agreement, as interpreted by the Bonn Peace Implementation Conference. There is no provision for any intervention by the respondent Party in those actions. In addition, the High Representative cannot be said to be acting as, or on behalf of, the State or the Entities when acting in pursuance of his powers. As a result, the actions giving rise to the present application cannot be considered to be within the scope of responsibility of the respondent Party.³⁴¹⁶ The Human Rights Chamber therefore concludes that these applications are incompatible ratione personae with the Agreement within the meaning of Article VIII.2(c) thereof.³⁴¹⁷