The Rule of Law in Kosovo

The Rule of Law in Kosovo Key Findings from the General Population Poll and Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires Acknowledgements The Rule of Law in Kosovo: Key Findings from the Chamness Long, Rachel L. Martin, Jorge A. General Population Poll and Qualified Respondents’ Morales, Alejandro Ponce, Natalia Rodríguez Questionnaires was produced by the World Cajamarca, and Adriana Stephan, with the Justice Project under the research oversight of assistance of Claudia Bobadilla, Gabriel Hearn- Alejandro Ponce and the executive direction of Desautels, Maura McCrary, Emma Poplack, and Elizabeth Andersen. Francesca Tinucci.

This report was prepared by Alicia Evangelides, This report was made possible with the support Joshua Fuller, Maura McCrary, Alejandro Ponce, of USAID. The views expressed in this report and Natalia Rodríguez Cajamarca. are those of the survey respondents and do not necessarily represent the views of USAID. Priyanka Khosla and Courtney Babcock were the graphic designers for this report.

Sampling, fieldwork and data processing for the General Population Poll were conducted by Requests to reproduce this document should be IDRA Research & Consulting. sent to:

The findings in this report are taken from the World Justice Project Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires and ATTN: WJP Permissions General Population Poll conducted for the World 1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1200 Justice Project Rule of Law Index®. The Index’s Washington, DC 20005 USA conceptual framework and methodology were developed by Mark D. Agrast, Juan Carlos Email: [email protected] Botero, and Alejandro Ponce. Data presented in Subject line: WJP Permissions this report were gathered and analyzed by the World Justice Project’s global research staff: Lindsey Bock, Erin Campbell, Alicia Evangelides, Emma Frerichs, Joshua Fuller, Amy Gryskiewicz, Camilo Gutiérrez Patiño, Ayyub Ibrahim, Sarah

WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE SEATTLE, WA OFFICE worldjusticeproject.org 1025 Vermont Avenue, Suite 1200 1424 4th Avenue, Suite 828 facebook.com/thewjp/ Washington, DC 20005, USA Seattle, WA 98101, USA P 202 407 9330 | F 202 747 5816 P 206 792 7676 | F 202 747 5816 twitter.com/TheWJP Table of Contents

I. ABOUT THIS REPORT 05 About This Report 06 Executive Summary

II. WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX® COUNTRY PROFILE 09 How to Read the Country Profile 10 Kosovo Country Profile

III. THEMATIC FINDINGS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND EXPERT PRACTITIONERS 12 Government Accountability 13 Corruption Across Institutions 14 Bribery Victimization 15 Fundamental Freedoms 16 Perceptions of the Police 18 Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System 19 Perceptions of the Criminal Courts 20 Interactions with the Police 21 Crime Victimization 22 Trust in Institutions

IV. PROJECT DESIGN 24 Methodology

V. APPENDIX 27 Appendix 28 About the WJP 29 Other Publications section I

About This Report

Photo: Kehitys Lehti, Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) About This Report

STRENGTHENING THE RULE OF LAW is an important objective for governments, donors, and civil society organizations around the world. To be effective, however, strengthening the rule of law requires clarity about the fundamental features of the rule of law, as well as an adequate basis for its evaluation and measurement. This report presents select findings drawn from two original data sources collected by the World Justice Project: a series of Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires and the General Population Poll.

As an overview of the country’s rule of law situation, this report presents Kosovo’s country profile from the WJP Rule of Law Index® 2020, which aggregates data from both the Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires (QRQs) and the General Population Poll (GPP). The profile presents Kosovo’s ranking and scores for each of the WJP Rule of Law Index’s factors and sub-factors, and draws comparisons between Kosovo’s scores and the scores of other indexed countries in the same regional and income groups. In order to provide a more in-depth view of the data underlying Kosovo’s WJP Rule of Law Index scores, this report also presents question-level data from the QRQs and the GPP that can provide more insights on the country’s performance across various dimensions of the rule of law.

This report represents the voices of people in Kosovo and their experiences with the rule of law in their country.

The Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires are administered online to in-country practitioners and academics with expertise in civil and commercial law; constitutional law, civil liberties, and criminal law; labor law; and public health. These questionnaires gather timely input on a range of topics from practitioners who frequently interact with state institutions. Such topics include information on accountability mechanisms, corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, the strength of regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice. In total, 51 expert practitioners completed the QRQs in Kosovo in 2019.

The General Population Poll was conducted through face-to-face interviews in 1,000 nationally representative households in Kosovo in 2019. This poll was designed to capture data on the experiences and perceptions of the general public on a variety of themes related to the rule of law. Such themes include government accountability, corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice.

The data derived from the QRQ and GPP is presented in this report as 10 thematic briefs, each one highlighting a different facet of the rule of law from the perspective of Kosovars. The thematic briefs are designed to call attention to governance issues in Kosovo from the perspective of the people, while simultaneously illuminating comparisons across the following peer countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia. These peer countries were selected based on their regional comparability and inclusion in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2020. The thematic briefs address issues of government accountability, corruption across institutions, bribery victimization, fundamental freedoms, perceptions of the police, perceptions of the criminal justice system, perceptions of the criminal courts, interactions with the police, crime victimization, and trust in institutions.

Section I: About This Report 5 Executive Summary

1 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 4 FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS There is a high perception of impunity in Kosovo. When Kosovars have mixed views of their fundamental freedoms presented with a hypothetical situation in which a high- (Chart 4a). About half (49%) of respondents on average ranking government officer is caught embezzling government believe that media freedoms are guaranteed in Kosovo. funds (Chart 1a), 24% of Kosovars believed that the Meanwhile, a majority of respondents, on average, believe accusation would be completely ignored by authorities, and that their political (60%) and religious (73%) freedoms are only 21% of Kosovars believed that the government officer guaranteed, though perceptions vary for specific freedoms in would be prosecuted and punished. However, compared these categories. Almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents to other peer countries, more Kosovars believe that the agreed that people can join together to draw attention to an high-ranking government officers would be punished than issue or sign a petition, but only 45% of respondents agreed respondents in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North that civil society organizations can express opinions against Macedonia, and Serbia. the government. In addition, 45% of respondents agreed that the media can expose cases of corruption. Chart 1b illustrates that Kosovars have mixed perceptions of checks on government powers, as 53% of respondents Across peer countries, more respondents agreed that believe it is more important to have a government that can religious freedoms are guaranteed, while media freedoms are get things done even if citizens have no influence over what perceived as a challenge in the region (Chart 4b). it does, than to have a government accountable to the people. When asked about presidential power and adherence to 5 POLICE PERFORMANCE law, most Kosovars believe the President is bound by laws Kosovars have moderate views on police accountability, but or court decisions (71%), and that citizens should obey the generally have more positive views on police performance government in power no matter who they voted for (74%). compared to peer countries (Chart 5a). The majority of respondents believe that the police always or often act 2 CORRUPTION ACROSS INSTITUTIONS according to the law (77%) and perform serious and law- Kosovars believe that a moderate number of authorities abiding investigations to find perpetrators (67%). are involved in corrupt practices. In Kosovo, members of the Parliament are perceived as the most corrupt authority, Within Kosovo, perceptions of police vary across regions with 47% of respondents reporting that most or all members (Chart 5b). While respondents in Gjilan and Mitrovica on are involved in corrupt practices. Kosovars perceive the average feel more positive about police performance than police as the least corrupt authority (20%), followed by local Kosovars in other regions, respondents in Pristina and Peja government officers (36%), judges and magistrates (39%), have more negative views. In Gjilan and Mitrovica more than and national government officers (45%). Among respondents 80% of respondents believe that the police respect the basic in peer countries, members of the police are also viewed as rights of suspects. In Pristina and Peja, 49% and 46% of the least corrupt. Kosovars believe the same, respectively.

3 BRIBERY VICTIMIZATION 6 PERCEPTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Bribery victimization is common in Kosovo. In the last three Kosovars report moderate levels of confidence in the criminal years, 21% of Kosovars paid a bribe in order to request justice system. As illustrated in Chart 6a, the majority of public benefits or government assistance. Approximately one respondents are confident that the criminal justice system out of 10 respondents reported that they paid a bribe to use ensures uniform quality by providing equal service regardless any public health services (11%) or to request a government of where they live (65%), makes sure everyone has access to permit or process a document (10%). Kosovars paid bribes the justice system (63%), and that the system is effective in least often to obtain a birth certificate or government-issued bringing people who commit crimes to justice (62%). Kosovars ID (3%). Although bribery victimization rates vary across are less confident that victims are able to receive the services peer countries, more respondents reported paying a bribe and support they need (54%), and that the system allows to request a government permit or document in Bosnia and victims to seek justice regardless of who they are (55%). Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia than for any other service. These concerns are echoed by Kosovar criminal justice experts, who identified the lack of prosecutorial independence, corrupt investigators, and inadequate witness protection as the most serious problems faced by the criminal investigative services in Kosovo (Chart 6b).

Section I: About This Report 6 7 PERCEPTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS Kosovars have negative views of the courts in their jurisdiction. When referring to the most serious problems faced by criminal courts (Chart 7a), criminal justice experts view delayed cases, lack of judicial independence, and poor judicial decisions as the biggest challenges.

Roughly half of respondents believe that the courts always or often guarantee a fair trial (52%) and only 34% said that the courts do not decide cases according to the interests of those who have more money or influence (Chart 7b).

8 INTERACTIONS WITH THE POLICE Out of those surveyed for this study, only 7% of Kosovars report that they voluntarily contacted the police in the past year (Chart 8a). The most common reason for contacting the police was to report an accident (42%), and respondents were generally satisfied with their interactions (83%).

Meanwhile, 25% of respondents experienced involuntary contact—contact that they did not initiate—with the police in the past year (Chart 8b). Of this, an overwhelming majority (96%) were stopped in a vehicle by police while only 4% were approached at their home, work, or in public. For those stopped in a vehicle, 54% were stopped as part of a routine check. Few respondents stopped in a vehicle were asked to pay a bribe by the police (4%).

9 CRIME VICTIMIZATION Approximately 3% of Kosovars in this study were the victims of a crime in the last 12 months. Categories of crimes include property crimes; crimes against life and the integrity of individuals; and corruption, finance, and commercial crimes.

10 TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS Kosovars have a fairly high degree of trust in their fellow members of society, with 67% reporting they have a lot or some trust in other people living in Kosovo. Across institutions, respondents have the most trust in the police (79%), and the least trust in national government officers (39%). Kosovars have similar perceptions of trust in the local government officers and the courts (53% and 52%, respectively). When compared to peer countries, Kosovars generally report a higher degree of trust in institutions than respondents in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia.

Section I: About This Report 7 section II

WJP Rule of Law Index® Country Profile

Photo: Konrad Lembcke, Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) How to Read the Country Profile This section presents the country profile for Kosovo as included in the WJP Rule of Law Index® 2020 report.

The profile presents scores for each of the WJP Rule of Law Index’s factors and sub-factors, and draws comparisons between the scores of the featured country and the scores of other indexed countries in the same regional and income groups. Scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score (strong adherence to rule of law) and 0 signifies the lowest possible score (weak adherence to rule of law). The country profiles consist of four sections, outlined below.

Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia Kosovo Region: EasternIncome Europe Group: & Upper Central Middle Asia Kyrgyz Republic Region: EasternIncome Europe Group: & Lower Central Middle Asia Region: EasternIncome Europe Group: & Upper Central Middle Asia Region: EasternIncome Europe Group: & Lower Central Middle Asia TheKosovo scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score. Kyrgyz Republic Kosovo Income Group: Upper Middle Income Group: Lower Middle TheKosovoOverall scores Scorerange from Regional0 to 1, where Rank 1 signifies Income the Rankhighest possible Global score Rank and 0 signifies the lowest possible score. KyrgyzOverall Score Regional Republic Rank Income Rank Global Rank The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score. Constraints on Constraints on Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank 0.54 2/14 17/42 54/128 Government 0.48 11/14 12/30 87/128 Government Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank ConstraintsPowers on Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank ConstraintsPowers on 1.1 1.1 0.54 2/14 17/42 54/128 Criminal 8.7 1.1 1.2 Government 0.48 11/14 12/30 87/128 Criminal 8.7 1.2 Government Section 1: Displays the country’s overall rule of law score; Score Change Rank Change 8.68.6 Constraints1.31.3 on Score Change Rank Change 8.6 Constraints1.3 on 8.5 Powers1.4 8.5 Powers1.4 0.54 2/14 17/42 54/128 Justice 8.5 Government1.4 0.48 11/14 12/30 87/128 Justice Government 8.4 1.1 1.5 8.4 1.1 1.5 Criminal 8.4 8.7 1.1 1.2 Criminal 8.7 1.2 Score Change Rank Change 8.68.6 1.31.3Powers Score Change Rank Change 8.6 1.3Powers 8.38.3 8.5 1.4 1.6 0.01 8.3 8.5 1.4 1.6 Factor Score Regional Income Global Justice 8.5 1.1 1.4 Justice 1.1 Criminal 8.4 8.7 1.1 1.2 1.5 Criminal 8.4 8.7 1.2 1.5 Score Change Rank Change 8.28.2 8.4 8.68.6 1.31.3 1.5 2.12.1 Score Change Rank Change 8.2 8.6 1.3 2.1 Score Change Rank Rank Rank 8.5 1.4 Absence of 8.5 1.4 Absence of its overall global, income, and regional ranks. Justice8.3 8.5 1.4 1.6 Justice8.3 1.6 8.3 1.6 0.01 Factor Score Regional Income Global Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.18.1 8.48.4 1.5 2.2 Corruption 8.1 8.4 1.5 2.2 Corruption Constraints on Score Change Rank Rank Rank 8.28.2 0.5 2.12.1 Absence of Score Change Rank Rank Rank 8.2 0.5 2.1 Absence of Factor0.52Score 0.00Regional 2/14Income 21/42 71/128Global 8.38.3 1.6 0.01 8.3 1.6 Government Powers 7.77.7 2.32.3 Corruption Factor Score Regional Income Global 7.7 2.3 Corruption Score Change Rank Rank Rank 8.18.18.28.2 2.12.1 2.2 Absence of 8.1 8.2 2.1 2.2 Absence of Constraints on 0.5 Constraints on Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5 0.52 0.00 2/14 21/42 71/128 7.67.6 2.42.4Corruption Factor0.48Score 0.00Regional 3/14Income 13/30 84/128Global 7.6 2.4Corruption Government Powers 7.77.78.18.1 2.22.32.3 Government Powers 7.78.1 2.22.3 ConstraintsAbsence of Corruption on 0.46 0.00 5/14 22/42 62/128 0.5 Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5 0.52 0.00 2/14 21/42 71/128 7.57.5 3.13.1 Constraints on 7.5 3.1 Government Powers 7.67.77.7 2.32.32.42.4 0.48 0.00 3/14 13/30 84/128 7.67.7 2.32.4 7.6 GovernmentAbsence of Corruption Powers 0.32 0.01 14/14 22/30 113/128 Absence of Corruption 0.46 0.00 5/14 22/42 62/128 0 Constraints on 0 7.47.4 3.23.2 0.48 0.00 3/14 13/30 84/128 7.4 3.2 Open Government 0.56 0.00 3/14 11/42 44/128 Civil 7.57.57.67.6 2.42.43.13.1 Open Government Powers Civil 7.57.6 2.43.1 Open Absence of Corruption 0.46 0.00 5/14 22/42 62/128 Justice Government Absence of Corruption 0.32 0.01 14/14 22/30 113/128 Justice Government 7.57.37.57.3 0 3.13.33.13.3 7.57.3 0 3.13.3 Open Government 0.56 0.00 3/14 11/42 44/128 Civil 7.47.4 3.23.2 Open Open Government 0.54 0.00 5/14 5/30 51/128 Civil 7.4 3.2 Open Fundamental Rights 0.60 0.00 3/14 15/42 52/128 Absence of Corruption 0.32 0.01 14/14 22/30 113/128 Justice 7.27.2 0 3.43.4 Government Justice 7.2 0 3.4 Government Open Government 0.56 0.00 3/14 11/42 44/128 Civil 7.47.37.47.3 3.33.33.23.2 Open Open Government 0.54 0.00 5/14 5/30 51/128 Civil 7.47.3 3.33.2 Open Fundamental Rights 0.60 0.00 3/14 15/42 52/128 Justice 7.17.1 4.14.1 Government Fundamental Rights 0.51 0.02 9/14 9/30 82/128 Justice 7.1 4.1 Government Section 2: Displays the country’s individual factor scores, Order and Security 0.84 0.00 2/14 1/42 25/128 7.37.37.27.2 3.43.43.33.3 Open Government 0.54 0.00 5/14 5/30 51/128 7.37.2 3.43.3 Fundamental Rights 0.60 0.00 3/14 15/42 52/128 6.56.5 4.24.2 6.5 4.2 7.27.27.17.1 4.14.13.43.4 Fundamental Rights 0.51 0.02 9/14 9/30 82/128 7.27.1 4.13.4 Order and Security 0.84 0.00 2/14 1/42 25/128 Order and Security 0.76 0.01 11/14 5/30 50/128 6.46.4 4.3 Fundamental Rights 0.51 0.02 9/14 9/30 82/128 6.4 4.3 Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 0.00 10/14 36/42 97/128 7.17.16.56.5 4.24.24.14.1 7.16.5 4.24.1 6.3 along with its global, regional, and income group rankings. Order and Security 0.84 0.00 2/14 1/42 25/128 6.3 4.4 Order and Security 0.76 0.01 11/14 5/30 50/128 6.3 4.4 6.4 4.3 Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 0.00 10/14 36/42 97/128 6.56.56.4 6.26.2 4.5 4.3 4.24.2 Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 -0.01 8/14 14/30 95/128 6.5 6.4 6.2 4.5 4.3 4.2 Regulatory 6.1 4.6 Regulatory Civil Justice 0.46 0.00 13/14 34/42 93/128 6.36.3 6.1 4.6 4.4 Order and Security 0.76 0.01 11/14 5/30 50/128 6.3 6.1 4.6 4.4 6.46.4 5.35.3 4.7 Fundamental4.3 6.4 5.3 4.7 Fundamental4.3 Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 0.00 10/14 36/42 97/128 Enforcement 5.2 5.1 4.8 Enforcement 6.26.2 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.5 Rights Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 -0.01 8/14 14/30 95/128 6.2 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.5 Rights Regulatory 6.36.3 4.4 Regulatory 6.3 4.4 Civil Justice 0.46 0.00 13/14 34/42 93/128 6.16.1 Order and 4.6 Civil Justice 0.49 0.00 9/14 11/30 80/128 6.1 Order and 4.6 6.2 5.35.3 4.7 4.5 Fundamental 5.3 4.7 Fundamental The global, regional, and income rankings are distributed Criminal Justice 0.47 0.00 4/14 18/42 56/128 Enforcement 6.2 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.5 Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 -0.01 8/14 14/30 95/128 Enforcement 6.2 4.5 Regulatory 5.2 5.1 4.8 Regulatory 5.2 5.1 4.8 Civil Justice 0.46 0.00 13/14 34/42 93/128 6.16.1 Security 4.6 Rights 6.1 Security 4.6 Rights 5.3 4.7 Fundamental Civil Justice 0.49 0.00 9/14 11/30 80/128 Fundamental Enforcement 5.3Order5.2 and 4.8 4.7 Enforcement 5.3Order and 4.7 Criminal Justice 0.47 0.00 4/14 18/42 56/128 5.2 5.15.1 4.8 Rights Criminal Justice 0.33 0.02 13/14 21/30 105/128 5.2 5.1 4.8 Rights Security Civil Justice 0.49 0.00 9/14 11/30 80/128 Security * Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the Order and Order and Criminal Justice 0.47 0.00Low 4/14 Medium 18/42 56/128 High 2020 Score2019-2020 Score2019 Score 2018-2019 Score Criminal Justice 0.33 0.02 13/14 21/30 105/128 2019-2020 Score 2018-2019 Score across three tiers—high, medium, and low—as indicated 10 percent level Security Security * Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the * IndicatesCriminal statistically Justice signi�cant change at0.33 the 0.02 13/14 21/30 105/128 Low Medium High 2020 Score2019-2020 Score2019 Score 2018-2019 Score Low Medium High 2019-2020 Score 2018-2019 Score 10 percent level 10 percent level * IndicatesKosovo statistically signi Eastern�cant Europe change & atCentral the Asia Upper Middle * Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the Low Medium High 2020 Score2019-2020 Score2019 Score 2018-2019 Score Low Medium High 2019-2020 Score 2018-2019 Score by the color of the box where the score is found. 10 percent level 10 percent level * Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the Kosovo Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle Kyrgyz Republic Eastern Europe & CentralLow Asia Medium Lower Middle High Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice 10 percent level Kosovo Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle Kyrgyz Republic Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice 1.1 Constraints on Government Powers 0.61 4.1 Fundamental Rights 0.63 7.1 Civil Justice 0.60 Kyrgyz Republic Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle LimitsConstraints by legislature on Government Powers NoFundamental discrimination Rights AccessibilityCivil Justice & affordability 1.1 0.61 4.1 0.63 7.1 0.60 1.1 Constraints on Government Powers 0.57 4.1 Fundamental Rights 0.54 7.1 Civil Justice 0.60 1.2 Limits by legislature 0.42 4.2 No discrimination 0.65 7.2 Accessibility & affordability 0.53 LimitsConstraints by legislature on Government Powers NoFundamental discrimination Rights AccessibilityCivil Justice & affordability 1.1 0.61 4.1 0.63 7.1 0.60 1.1 0.57 4.1 0.54 7.1 0.60 Limits by legislaturejudiciary NoRight discrimination to life & security AccessibilityNo discrimination & affordability 1.2 0.42 4.2 0.65 7.2 0.53 1.11.2 Limits by legislature 0.570.30 4.14.2 No discrimination 0.540.52 7.17.2 Accessibility & affordability 0.600.56 1.3 Limits by judiciary 0.60 4.3 Right to life & security 0.60 7.3 No discrimination 0.36 Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination 1.2 0.42 4.2 0.65 7.2 0.53 1.2 Limits by legislature 0.30 4.2 No discrimination 0.52 7.2 Accessibility & affordability 0.56 LimitsIndependent by judiciary auditing RightDue process to life & of security law No discriminationcorruption Section 3: Displays the country’s disaggregated scores 1.3 0.60 4.3 0.60 7.3 0.36 1.21.3 Limits by judiciary 0.300.43 4.24.3 Right to life & security 0.520.35 7.27.3 No discrimination 0.560.37 1.4 Independent auditing 0.38 4.4 Due process of law 0.57 7.4 No corruption 0.44 Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption 1.3 0.60 4.3 0.60 7.3 0.36 1.3 Limits by judiciary 0.43 4.3 Right to life & security 0.35 7.3 No discrimination 0.37 IndependentSanctions for auditingof�cial misconduct DueFreedom process of expression of law No corruptionimproper gov't in�uence 1.4 0.38 4.4 0.57 7.4 0.44 1.31.4 Independent auditing 0.430.47 4.34.4 Due process of law 0.350.60 7.37.4 No corruption 0.370.34 for each of the sub-factors that compose the WJP Rule 1.5 Sanctions for of�cial misconduct 0.57 4.5 Freedom of expression 0.73 7.5 No improper gov't in�uence 0.24 Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence 1.4 0.38 4.4 0.57 7.4 0.44 1.4 Independent auditing 0.47 4.4 Due process of law 0.60 7.4 No corruption 0.34 SanctionsNon-governmental for of�cial checks misconduct Freedom of expressionreligion No improperunreasonable gov't delay in�uence 1.5 0.57 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.24 1.41.5 Sanctions for of�cial misconduct 0.470.60 4.44.5 Freedom of expression 0.600.58 7.47.5 No improper gov't in�uence 0.340.51 1.6 Non-governmental checks 0.55 4.6 Freedom of religion 0.51 7.6 No unreasonable delay 0.42 Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay of Law Index. 1.5 0.57 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.24 1.5 Sanctions for of�cial misconduct 0.60 4.5 Freedom of expression 0.58 7.5 No improper gov't in�uence 0.51 Non-governmentalLawful transition of checkspower FreedomRight to privacy of religion NoEffective unreasonable enforcement delay 1.6 0.55 4.6 0.51 7.6 0.42 1.51.6 Non-governmental checks 0.600.52 4.54.6 Freedom of religion 0.580.32 7.57.6 No unreasonable delay 0.510.39 Lawful transition of power 4.7 Right to privacy 0.62 7.7 Effective enforcement 0.62 Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement 1.6 0.55 4.6 0.51 7.6 0.42 1.6 Non-governmental checks 0.52 4.6 Freedom of religion 0.32 7.6 No unreasonable delay 0.39 LawfulAbsence transition of Corruption of power RightFreedom to privacy of association EffectiveImpartial enforcement& effective ADRs 4.7 0.62 7.7 0.62 1.6 Lawful transition of power 0.52 4.64.7 Right to privacy 0.320.64 7.67.7 Effective enforcement 0.390.65 4.74.8 Freedom of association 0.620.45 7.7 Impartial & effective ADRs 0.62 Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs 2.1 Absence of Corruption 0.45 LawfulAbsence transition of Corruption of power 4.7 Right to privacy 0.64 7.7 Effective enforcement 0.65 FreedomLabor rights of association ImpartialCriminal &Justice effective ADRs InAbsence the executive of Corruption branch 4.8 0.45 4.74.8 Freedom of association 0.640.55 7.7 Impartial & effective ADRs 0.65 2.1 0.45 2.1 Absence of Corruption 0.37 The country’s score is represented by the purple bar Labor rights Labor rights 4.8 0.45 Criminal Justice 4.8 Freedom of association 0.55 ImpartialCriminal & Justice effective ADRs 2.12.2 In the executive branch 0.45 8.1 0.35 InAbsence the executive of Corruption branch LaborOrder rights and Security Criminal Justice 2.1 0.37 In the executivejudiciary branch Effective investigations 4.8 Labor rights 0.55 Criminal Justice 2.2 0.45 8.1 0.35 2.12.2 In the executive branch 0.370.39 8.1 0.39 Order and Security LaborOrder rights and Security Criminal Justice and is labeled at the end of the bar. The average score of 2.22.3Section In the judiciary 4: Presents0.450.64 5.1 the individual0.89 sub-factor8.18.2 Effective investigations scores0.350.34 In the executivejudiciary branch Effective investigations Order and Security 2.2 0.39 8.1 0.39 In the judiciarypolice/military Absence of crime EffectiveTimely & effectiveinvestigations adjudication Order and Security 2.3 0.64 5.1 0.89 8.2 0.34 2.22.3 In the judiciary 0.390.38 5.1 0.79 8.18.2 Effective investigations 0.390.50 2.4 In the police/military 0.31 5.2 Absence of crime 1.00 8.3 Timely & effective adjudication 0.60 In the police/military AbsenceOrder and of crimeSecurity Timely & effective adjudication the country’s region is represented by the orange line. 2.3underlying each0.64 of5.1 the factors listed0.89 8.2 in Section 3 of0.34 2.3 In the judiciary 0.38 5.1 0.79 8.2 Effective investigations 0.50 In the police/militarylegislature Absence of crimecivil con�ict TimelyEffective & effectivecorrectional adjudication system 2.4 0.31 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.60 2.32.4 In the police/military 0.380.15 5.15.2 Absence of crime 0.791.00 8.28.3 Timely & effective adjudication 0.500.23 In the legislature 5.3 Absence of civil con�ict 0.62 8.4 Effective correctional system 0.60 In the legislature Absence of civil con�ict Effective correctional system 2.4 0.31 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.60 2.4 In the police/military 0.15 5.2 Absence of crime 1.00 8.3 Timely & effective adjudication 0.23 InOpen the legislatureGovernment Absence of civilviolent con redress�ict EffectiveNo discrimination correctional system The average score of the country’s income group is the country profile.5.3 0.62 8.4 0.60 2.4 In the legislature 0.15 5.25.3 Absence of civil con�ict 1.000.48 8.38.4 Effective correctional system 0.230.33 5.3 Absence of violent redress 0.62 8.48.5 No discrimination 0.600.50 Absence of violent redress No discrimination 3.1 Open Government 0.50 InOpen the legislatureGovernment 5.3 Absence of civil con�ict 0.48 8.4 Effective correctional system 0.33 AbsenceRegulatory of violent Enforcement redress No discriminationcorruption PublicizedOpen Government laws & gov't data 8.5 0.50 5.3 Absence of violent redress 0.48 8.48.5 No discrimination 0.330.29 3.1 0.50 3.1 Open Government 0.53 represented by the green line. 8.6 No corruption 0.29 No corruption Regulatory Enforcement 8.5 0.50 AbsenceRegulatory of violent Enforcement redress 8.5 No discrimination 0.29 3.13.2 Publicized laws & gov't data 0.500.51 6.1 0.36 PublicizedOpen Government laws & gov't data No corruptionimproper gov't in�uence 3.1 0.53 Right to information EffectiveRegulatory regulatory Enforcement enforcement 8.6 0.29 Regulatory Enforcement 8.58.6 No corruption 0.290.21 3.2 Publicized laws & gov't data 0.51 6.1 0.36 3.2 Publicized laws & gov't data 0.53 6.1 0.51 8.7 No improper gov't in�uence 0.60 3.1 0.53 No improper gov't in�uence 8.6 0.29 Regulatory Enforcement 8.6 No corruption 0.21 3.23.3Each Right to information of the 44 0.510.57sub-factors6.16.2 Effective regulatory enforcement is represented0.360.56 by a PublicizedRight to information laws & gov't data Effective regulatory enforcement NoDue improper process ofgov't law in�uence 3.2 0.53 6.1 0.51 Civic participation No improper in�uence 8.7 0.60 8.68.7 No improper gov't in�uence 0.210.35 3.3 Right to information 0.57 6.2 Effective regulatory enforcement 0.56 3.3 Right to information 0.59 6.2 Effective regulatory enforcement 0.44 Due process of law 3.2 0.53 6.1 0.51 Due process of law 8.7 0.60 8.7 No improper gov't in�uence 0.35 3.33.4 Civic participation 0.570.67 6.26.3 No improper in�uence 0.560.39 RightCivic participation to information EffectiveNo improper regulatory in�uence enforcement purple line drawn from the center to Duethe process ofperiphery law 3.3 0.59 6.2 0.44 CivicComplaint participation mechanisms No improperunreasonable in�u delayence 8.7 Due process of law 0.35 3.4 0.67 6.3 0.39 3.33.4 Civic participation 0.590.50 6.26.3 No improper in�uence 0.440.53 Due process of law Complaint mechanisms 6.4 No unreasonable delay 0.35 Complaint mechanisms No unreasonable delay 3.4 0.67 6.3 0.39 3.4 Civic participation 0.50 6.3 No improper in�uence 0.53 Complaint mechanisms NoRespect unreasonable for due process delay of the circle. The center6.4 of the circle0.35 corresponds 3.4 Complaint mechanisms 0.50 6.36.4 No unreasonable delay 0.530.32 6.5 Respect for due process 0.55 Respect for due process 6.4 0.35 Complaint mechanisms 6.4 No unreasonable delay 0.32 RespectNo expropriation for due process w/out adequate compensation 6.5 0.55 6.46.5 Respect for due process 0.320.43 to the worst possibleNo expropriation score w/out adequate for compensation each sub-factor (0), No expropriation w/out adequate compensation 6.5 0.55 6.5 Respect for due process 0.43 No expropriation w/out adequate compensation 6.5 No expropriation w/out adequate compensation0.43 96 and the outer edge of the circle marks the best No expropriation w/out adequate compensation 96 96 possible score for each sub-factor (1).

Section II: WJP Rule of Law Index Country Profile 9 Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia Kosovo Income Group: Upper Middle Kyrgyz Republic Income Group: Lower Middle The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score. Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank Constraints on Constraints on 0.54 2/14 17/42 54/128 Government 0.48 11/14 12/30 87/128 Government Powers Powers 1.1 1.1 Criminal 8.7 1.1 1.2 Criminal 8.7 1.2 Score Change Rank Change 8.68.6 1.31.3 Score Change Rank Change 8.6 1.3 Justice 8.58.5 1.41.4 Justice 8.5 1.4 8.48.4 1.5 8.4 1.5 Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.38.3 1.6 0.01 8.3 1.6 Score Change Rank Rank Rank 8.28.2 2.12.1 Absence of 8.2 2.1 Absence of Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.18.1 2.2 Corruption 8.1 2.2 Corruption Constraints on Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.52 0.00 2/14 21/42 71/128 0.5 0.5 Government Powers 7.77.7 2.32.3 7.7 2.3 Constraints on 0.48 0.00 3/14 13/30 84/128 7.67.6 2.42.4 Government Powers 7.6 2.4 Absence of Corruption 0.46 0.00 5/14 22/42 62/128 7.57.5 3.13.1 7.5 3.1 Absence of Corruption 0.32 0.01 14/14 22/30 113/128 0 0 Open Government 0.56 0.00 3/14 11/42 44/128 Civil 7.47.4 3.23.2 Open Civil 7.4 3.2 Open Justice Government Justice Government 7.37.3 3.33.3 Open Government 0.54 0.00 5/14 5/30 51/128 7.3 3.3 Fundamental Rights 0.60 0.00 3/14 15/42 52/128 7.27.2 3.43.4 7.2 3.4

7.17.1 4.14.1 Fundamental Rights 0.51 0.02 9/14 9/30 82/128 7.1 4.1 Order and Security 0.84 0.00 2/14 1/42 25/128 6.56.5 4.24.2 6.5 4.2 Order and Security 0.76 0.01 11/14 5/30 50/128 Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 0.00 10/14 36/42 97/128 6.46.4 4.3 6.4 4.3 6.36.3 4.4 6.3 4.4 6.2 4.5 Regulatory 6.2 4.5 Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 -0.01 8/14 14/30 95/128 Regulatory 6.2 4.5 Civil Justice 0.46 0.00 13/14 34/42 93/128 6.16.1 4.6 6.1 4.6 5.3 4.7 Fundamental Fundamental Enforcement 5.3 5.2 4.8 4.7 Enforcement 5.3 4.7 5.2 5.15.1 4.8 Rights 5.2 5.1 4.8 Rights Order and Civil Justice 0.49 0.00 9/14 11/30 80/128 Order and Criminal Justice 0.47 0.00 4/14 18/42 56/128 Security Security Criminal Justice 0.33 0.02 13/14 21/30 105/128 * Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the Low Medium High 2020 Score2019-2020 Score2019 Score 2018-2019 Score 2019-2020 Score 2018-2019 Score 10 percent level * Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the Low Medium High 10 percent level Kosovo Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Kyrgyz Republic Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1 0.61 4.1 0.63 7.1 0.60 Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability 1.1 0.57 4.1 0.54 7.1 0.60 1.2 0.42 4.2 0.65 7.2 0.53 Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination 1.2 0.30 4.2 0.52 7.2 0.56 1.3 0.60 4.3 0.60 7.3 0.36 Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption 1.3 0.43 4.3 0.35 7.3 0.37 1.4 0.38 4.4 0.57 7.4 0.44 Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence 1.4 0.47 4.4 0.60 7.4 0.34 1.5 0.57 4.5 0.73 7.5 0.24 Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay 1.5 0.60 4.5 0.58 7.5 0.51 1.6 0.55 4.6 0.51 7.6 0.42 Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement 1.6 0.52 4.6 0.32 7.6 0.39 4.7 0.62 7.7 0.62 Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs Absence of Corruption 4.7 0.64 7.7 0.65 4.8 0.45 Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs 2.1 0.45 Absence of Corruption Labor rights Criminal Justice In the executive branch 4.8 0.55 2.1 0.37 Labor rights Criminal Justice 2.2 0.45 8.1 0.35 In the executive branch Order and Security In the judiciary Effective investigations 2.2 0.39 8.1 0.39 Order and Security 2.3 0.64 5.1 0.89 8.2 0.34 In the judiciary Effective investigations In the police/military Absence of crime Timely & effective adjudication 2.3 0.38 5.1 0.79 8.2 0.50 2.4 0.31 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.60 In the police/military Absence of crime Timely & effective adjudication In the legislature Absence of civil con�ict Effective correctional system 2.4 0.15 5.2 1.00 8.3 0.23 5.3 0.62 8.4 0.60 In the legislature Absence of civil con�ict Effective correctional system Absence of violent redress No discrimination Open Government 5.3 0.48 8.4 0.33 8.5 0.50 Absence of violent redress No discrimination 3.1 0.50 Open Government Regulatory Enforcement No corruption Publicized laws & gov't data 8.5 0.29 3.1 0.53 8.6 0.29 Regulatory Enforcement No corruption 3.2 0.51 6.1 0.36 Publicized laws & gov't data No improper gov't in�uence Right to information Effective regulatory enforcement 8.6 0.21 3.2 0.53 6.1 0.51 8.7 0.60 No improper gov't in�uence 3.3 0.57 6.2 0.56 Right to information Effective regulatory enforcement Due process of law Civic participation No improper in�uence 8.7 0.35 3.3 0.59 6.2 0.44 Due process of law 3.4 0.67 6.3 0.39 Civic participation No improper in�uence Complaint mechanisms No unreasonable delay 3.4 0.50 6.3 0.53 6.4 0.35 Complaint mechanisms No unreasonable delay Respect for due process 6.4 0.32 6.5 0.55 Respect for due process No expropriation w/out adequate compensation 6.5 0.43 No expropriation w/out adequate compensation Section II: WJP Rule of Law Index Country Profile 10

96 section III

Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners

Photo: Marc Valdener, Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) Government Accountability Views in Kosovo and select peer countries regarding accountability under the law.

Chart 1a. Perceptions of Accountability in Kosovo and Select Peer Countries* Most likely outcome if a high-ranking government ofﬁcer is caught embezzling public funds.

25% 50% 75% 100% Albania 14% 67% 19% Bosnia and 12% 66% 22% Herzegovina

Kosovo 21% 54% 24%

North 13% 62% 24% Macedonia Serbia 14% 59% 27%

The high-ranking An investigation is The accusation is government oﬃcer is opened, but never completely ignored by prosecuted and punished reaches a conclusion the authorities

Chart 1b. Checks on Government Power Kosovars’ views on the relative importance of government power and accountability.

Government Accountability Presidential Power Adherence to Law It is more important to have a government The President should not be bound It is important for citizens to obey A that can get things done, even if citizens A by laws or court decisions that A the government in power, no have no inﬂuence over what it does. s/he thinks are wrong. matter who they voted for.

53% 26% 74%

It is more important for citizens to be able The President must always obey It is not necessary for citizens B to hold government accountable, even if B the laws and the courts, even if B to obey the laws of a government it means decisions are made more slowly. s/he thinks they are wrong. they did not vote for.

45% 71% 23%

Percentage of respondents who very strongly agreed or agreed with Statement A or Statement B

* Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding Source: WJP General Population Poll 2017 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia), 2018 (Albania), and 2019 (Kosovo)

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 12 Corruption Across Institutions Data on perceptions of corruption across institutions in Kosovo and select peer countries.

Chart 2. Perceptions of Corruption in Kosovo and Select Peer Countries Most / All Some / None Perceptions about the number of authorities involved in corrupt practices.

25% 50% 75% 100%

Members of Parliament/Congress 58% 42%

National Government Oﬃcers 46% 54%

Albania Judges and Magistrates 59% 41%

Local Government Oﬃcers 39% 61%

The Police 28% 72%

Members of Parliament/Congress*

National Government Oﬃcers 67% 33%

Bosnia and Judges and Magistrates 51% 49% Herzegovina Local Government Oﬃcers 59% 41%

The Police 38% 62%

Members of Parliament/Congress 47% 53%

National Government Oﬃcers 45% 55%

Kosovo Judges and Magistrates 39% 61%

Local Government Oﬃcers 36% 64%

The Police 20% 80%

Members of Parliament/Congress 65% 35%

North National Government Oﬃcers 60% 40%

Macedonia Judges and Magistrates 54% 46%

Local Government Oﬃcers 50% 50%

The Police 47% 53%

Members of Parliament/Congress 52% 48%

National Government Oﬃcers 44% 56%

Serbia Judges and Magistrates 45% 55%

Local Government Oﬃcers 41% 59%

The Police 37% 63%

* Data removed because it could not be validated. Source: WJP General Population Poll 2017 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia), 2018 (Albania), and 2019 (Kosovo)

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 13 Bribery Victimization Data on bribes paid in Kosovo and select peer countries to access public services.

Chart 3. Bribery Victimization in Kosovo and Select Peer Countries by Service Percentage of respondents who had to pay a bribe in the last three years to…

5% 15% 25% 35% 00%

Albania 25%

Bosnia and 25% Request a Herzegovina

Government Kosovo 10%

Permit or North 17% Document Macedonia Serbia 14%

Albania 21%

Bosnia and 18% Request Public Herzegovina Beneﬁts or Kosovo 21% North 11% Assistance Macedonia

Serbia 8%

Albania 5%

Bosnia and 3% Obtain a Birth Herzegovina

Certiﬁcate or Kosovo 3% Government North 4% Issued ID Macedonia Serbia 2%

Albania 10% Bosnia and Herzegovina 10% Secure a 7% Place at a Kosovo North Public School Macedonia 6% Serbia 7%

Albania 33%

Bosnia and 21% Use a Public Herzegovina Health Service Kosovo 11% North Macedonia 6%

Serbia 11%

Source: WJP General Population Poll 2017 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia), 2018 (Albania), and 2019 (Kosovo)

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 14 Fundamental Freedoms Views on the extent to which various political, media, and religious freedoms are eﬀectively guaranteed.

Chart 4a. Fundamental Freedoms in Kosovo Views on speciﬁc political, media, and religious freedoms in Kosovo.

20% 40% 60% 80% Political 60% National Percentage of Kosovars who agree that... Average People can express opinions 59% against the government

Civil society organizations can express 45% opinions against the government

Political parties can express opinions 50% against the government

People can attend community meetings 63%

People can join any political organization 71%

People can organize around an 74% issue or petition

Media 49% National Average Percentage of Kosovars who agree that... Media can express opinions 53% against the government

Media can expose cases of corruption 45%

Religious 73% National Average Percentage of Kosovars who agree that... Religious minorities can 73% observe their holy days

Chart 4b. Averages of Fundamental Freedoms 80% Average views on fundamental freedoms in Kosovo compared to those of select peer countries.

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% 52% 45% 92% 45% 00% 71% 60% 49% 73% 60% 36% 83% 67% 43% 87% 30% Albania Bosnia and Kosovo North Serbia Herzegovina* Macedonia

Key Political Media Religious

*Data removed for Media Freedoms because it could not be validated. Source: WJP General Population Poll 2017 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia), 2018 (Albania), and 2019 (Kosovo)

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 15 Perceptions of the Police Views on police accountability in Kosovo and select peer countries.

Chart 5a. Police Accountability Percentage who believe that the police always or often... 25% 50% 75% 100%

Act according to the law 63%

Perform serious investigations 46% to ﬁnd perpetrators

Respect the basic 49% Albania rights of suspects

Are punished for 45% violating the law

Act according to the law 52%

Perform serious investigations 47% to ﬁnd perpetrators

Bosnia and Respect the basic 55% rights of suspects Herzegovina Are punished for 34% violating the law

Act according to the law 77%

Perform serious investigations 67% to ﬁnd perpetrators

Kosovo Respect the basic 65% rights of suspects

Are punished for 60% violating the law

Act according to the law 52%

Perform serious investigations 45% to ﬁnd perpetrators

Respect the basic 49% North rights of suspects

Macedonia Are punished for 41% violating the law

Act according to the law 72%

Perform serious investigations 65% to ﬁnd perpetrators

Serbia Respect the basic 68% rights of suspects

Are punished for 39% violating the law

Source: WJP General Population Poll 2017 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia), 2018 (Albania), and 2019 (Kosovo)

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 16 Chart 5b. Perceptions by Region of Kosovo Percentage who believe that the police always or often...

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

60% 52% Peja 46% 51%

96% Mitrovica 82% 83% 71%

67% Pristina 58% 49% 51%

86% 80% Gjilan 86% 71%

80% Ferizaj 67% 80% 51%

86% Prizren 73% 75% 73%

69% Gjakova 62% 55% 52%

Act according to the law Perform serious investigations to ﬁnd perpetrators

Respect the basic rights of suspects Are punished for violating the law

Source: WJP General Population Poll 2019

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 17 Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System Perceptions of the performance of the criminal justice system in Kosovo.

Chart 6a. Perceptions of the Criminal Justice System in Kosovo Percentage of respondents who are confident that the criminal justice system… 62% Is effective in bringing people who commit crimes to justice 57% 58% Safeguards the presumption of innocence Ensures timeliness by dealing by treating those accused of crimes as 90% with cases promptly and efficiently innocent until proven guilty 80% 70% 60%

50% 40% 58% 30% 63% Ensures equal treatment of the 20% Makes sure everyone has accused by giving all a fair trial access to the justice system regardless of who they are

54% 65% Provides victim support Ensures uniform quality by providing and services to crime victims equal service regardless of where you live 55% 56% Ensures equal treatment of victims by allowing all Gives appropriate punishments victims to seek justice regardless of who they are that ﬁt the crime

Chart 6b. Problems Impacting the Investigative Services in Kosovo Average score for the most serious problems faced by the criminal investigative services, on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 Not Serious 5 Very Serious 10

Lack of Prosecutorial 8.3 Independence

Corrupt Investigators 7.2

Inadequate Witness Protection 6.7

Corrupt Prosecutors 6.6

Incompetent Investigators 6.1

Deﬁcient Mechanisms to Obtain Evidence 5.7

Inadequate Resources 5.5

Lack of Proactive 4.8 Investigation Methods

Source: WJP General Population Poll 2019 (Chart 6a); WJP Qualiﬁed Respondents' Questionnaires 2019 (Chart 6b)

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 18 Perceptions of the Criminal Courts Perceptions of the performance of criminal courts in Kosovo.

Chart 7a. Problems Impacting the Criminal Courts in Kosovo Average score for the most serious problems faced by the criminal courts, on a scale of 1 to 10.

1 Not Serious 5 Very Serious 10

Delayed Cases 8.2

Lack of Judicial Independence 7.7

Poor Judicial Decisions 7.0

Excessive Pre-Trial Detention 6.7

Corruption 5.5

Inadequate Alternative 4.9 Dispute Resolution

Insuﬃcient Criminal 4.8 Defense Availability

Inadequate Resources 4.8

Bias Against Marginalized People 4.3

Chart 7b. Perceptions of the Criminal Courts in Kosovo Percentage of respondents who believe that the courts always or often…

Are more concerned Do not decide cases according Guarantee everyone about providing justice to the interests of those who a fair trial than procedures have more money or inﬂuence

52% 36% 34%

Source: WJP Qualiﬁed Respondents' Questionnaires 2019 (Chart 7a); WJP General Population Poll 2019 (Chart 7b)

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 19 Interactions with the Police Data on the experiences of people in Kosovo who interacted with the police in the last 12 months.

Chart 8a. Voluntary Contact with the Police Incidence of voluntary interactions with the police, reasons for contact, and reported experiences.

Reasons for contacting the police: 83% 7% 42% to report an accident 22% to report a crime of respondents were of respondents in 10% to report a ﬁght or domestic violence satisﬁed with their Kosovo voluntarily 10% to request information police interaction. contacted the police. 16% to request other help

contacted the contacted the 18% police in person. 82% police remotely.

reported that the 82% police solved the problem remotely.

Chart 8b. Involuntary Contact with the Police Incidence of involuntary interactions with the police, reasons for contact, and reported experiences.

of respondents in Kosovo were involuntarily contacted 25% by the police.

were stopped in were approached 96% a vehicle. 4% at their home, work, or in public.* Reasons for being stopped: 54% as part of a routine check 43% due to a traﬃc violation 3% to check if the driver was drunk

were asked to pay felt the police were 4% a bribe. 94% kind and respectful.

*The sample size for those approached at home, work, or in public was too small to disaggregate by reason for being stopped. Therefore, the reasons for being stopped for this kind of involuntary contact have been removed. Source: WJP General Population Poll 2019

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 20 Crime Victimization Data on crimes experienced in Kosovo.

Chart 9. Crime Victimization in Kosovo by Category of Crime* Percentage of respondents in Kosovo that experienced any crime in the last year, overall and by category of crime.

Overall % Crime Rate 3

Categories under Property Crimes Theft of car Theft from car Property % Vandalism or property damage Crimes 1 Theft of moped, motor scooter, or motorcycle Theft of bicycle Theft of livestock Theft of personal property or pickpocketing

Categories under Crimes Against Life and Integrity of Individuals

Burglary Crimes Against Attempted burglary Life and Integrity 2% Robbery of Individuals Assaults/threats Kidnapping Rape or sexual assault Hate crime

Categories under Corruption, Finance, and Commercial Crimes

Extortion Corruption, Bribery/corruption by public oﬃcials Finance, and % Consumer fraud Commercial 1 Crimes

*The crime rates are calculated as the percentage of respondents that experienced a crime out of the entire sample of 1,000 respondents. As a result, crime rates are low. The question phrasing also affects the response rate. Respondents are ﬁrst asked if they have been a victim of any type of crime in the past 12 months. If they answer “yes,” then they are asked about the last crime that they suffered. Only those that say that they experienced a crime in the past 12 months are asked about the type of crime. Note: The crime rates for the three categories of crimes do not add to the overall crime rate due to rounding. Source: WJP General Population Poll 2019

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 21 Trust in Institutions Data on the extent to which people in Kosovo and select peer countries trust various groups and institutions.

Chart 10. Trust in Kosovo and Select Peer Countries How much trust do people have in... A lot / Some Little / None

25% 50% 75% 100%

National Government Oﬃcers 39% 61%

Judges and Magistrates 30% 70%

Albania Local Government Oﬃcers 44% 56%

The Police 66% 34%

People Living in this Country 58% 42%

National Government Oﬃcers 22% 78%

Judges and Magistrates 36% 64%

Bosnia and Local Government Oﬃcers 27% 73% Herzegovina The Police 55% 45%

People Living in this Country 65% 35%

National Government Oﬃcers 39% 61%

Judges and Magistrates 52% 48%

Kosovo Local Government Oﬃcers 53% 47%

The Police 79% 21%

People Living in this Country 67% 33%

National Government Oﬃcers 27% 73%

Judges and Magistrates 32% 68%

North Local Government Oﬃcers 35% 65% Macedonia The Police 43% 57%

People Living in this Country 55% 45%

National Government Oﬃcers 36% 64%

Judges and Magistrates 38% 62%

Serbia Local Government Oﬃcers 42% 58%

The Police 54% 46%

People Living in this Country 69% 31%

Source: WJP General Population Poll 2017 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia), 2018 (Albania), and 2019 (Kosovo)

Section III: Thematic Findings from the General Public and Expert Practitioners 22 section IV

Project Design

Photo: Katarina, Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) Methodology Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires and General Population Poll

Data Sources To portray the rule of law as experienced by ordinary people, the findings of this report are drawn primarily from two original data sources collected by the World Justice Project in Kosovo: a series of Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires (QRQs) and a General Population Poll (GPP). These two data sources collect up-to-date firsthand information that is not otherwise available at the global level, and constitute the world’s most comprehensive dataset of its kind. They capture the experiences and perceptions of ordinary people and in-country practitioners concerning the performance of the state and its agents and the actual operation of the legal framework in their country.

Qualified Respondents' Questionnaires total of 51 expert practitioners completed the QRQs, with The Qualified Respondents' Questionnaires (QRQs) were 12 practitioners completing the Civil and Commercial Law conducted for the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index® QRQ; 27 practitioners completing the Constitutional Law, by the World Justice Project’s research team based in Civil Liberties, and Criminal Law QRQ; eight practitioners Washington, DC. The surveys were administered online from completing the Labor Law QRQ; and four practitioners June 2019 through November 2019. The QRQ surveys are completing the Public Health QRQ. conducted annually, and the questionnaires are completed by in-country experts and practitioners selected from General Population Poll directories of law firms, universities and colleges, research The General Population Poll in Kosovo was conducted for the organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), World Justice Project Rule of Law Index with sampling, survey as well as through referrals from the WJP global network of administration, and data processing by IDRA Research and practitioners. All participants are vetted by WJP staff based on Consulting based in Pristina, Kosovo. The survey fieldwork their expertise. was conducted face-to-face between October 15, 2019, and November 3, 2019, using a multi-stage stratified cluster These questionnaires encompass four areas of practice, sampling design. The target population for this survey was including civil and commercial law; constitutional law, civil Kosovars, 18 years of age or older, living in the regions of liberties, and criminal law; labor law; and public health. They Ferizaj, Gjakova, Gjilan, Mitrovica, Peja, Prizren, and Pristina. gather timely input on a range of topics from practitioners who frequently interact with state institutions, and who SAMPLING SIZE AND SAMPLING FRAME represent the voice of the people in their countries. Such The achieved sample size was 1,000 interviews distributed topics include information on the efficacy of courts, the proportionally throughout the regions of Ferizaj, Gjakova, strength of regulatory enforcement, and the reliability of Gjilan, Mitrovica, Peja, Prizren, and Pristina. The sample was accountability mechanisms. The questionnaires contain proportionally stratified by region, urbanization, gender, age, closed-ended perception questions and several hypothetical and socioeconomic status. scenarios with highly detailed factual assumptions aimed at ensuring comparability across countries. SAMPLING For the sample, voting centers were the primary sampling The expert surveys are administered in five languages: units and were sampled using probability proportionate to size English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. The QRQ sampling. The secondary sampling units were households and data for the 2020 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index were selected using a random route method. Respondents report includes more than 4,000 surveys, which represents were randomly selected using the last birthday method. an average of 32 respondents per country. In Kosovo, a

Section IV: Project Design 24 Description of the Sample Interviewing and Quality Control COVERAGE: Interviews were A team of 32 interviewers worked on this project, including 19 women. The conducted to create a nationally interviewers were trained on conducting the questionnaire, random route representative sample. The regions procedures, and household selection. All interviews were conducted in Albanian, with the most interviews conducted Serbian, and Turkish. are Pristina (26%), Prizren (23%), and Peja (13%). The average length of an interview was 31 minutes and ranged from 25 minutes to 1 hour and 53 minutes. GEOGRAPHY: 39% of respondents reside in rural areas, villages, and Additional Countries towns. 61% of respondents reside The report includes comparisons to Eastern European and Central Asian peer in metro areas or cities. countries previously surveyed by the World Justice Project. These countries are: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia. The countries ETHNICITY: Most respondents listed above are a portion of the 128 countries included in the World Justice Project identified themselves as Albanian Rule of Law Index 2020 report. The surveys in these Eastern European and Central (90%), or Serbian (5%). Asian countries are administered using a probability sample of 1,000 respondents in nationally representative samples or the three largest cities of each country. GENDER: 50% of respondents were Detailed information regarding the methodology of the WJP Rule of Law Index is female and 50% were male. available at www.worldjusticeproject.org.

EDUCATION: Over a third of The WJP Rule of Law Index respondents (40%) reported that The WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 is the latest report in an annual series measuring they had received a high school the rule of law based on the experiences and perceptions of the general public and level education, and another 39% in-country experts and practitioners worldwide. The Index presents a portrait of the of respondents received a middle rule of law based on eight factors: Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of school diploma or less. Corruption, Open Government, Fundamental Rights, Order and Security, Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice. This year’s and previous versions of the WJP Rule of Law Index are available online at www.worldjusticeproject.org. In addition to the Index report, an interactive online platform for WJP Rule of Law Index data is available at https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/. The interactive data portal invites viewers to browse each of the 128 country profiles and to explore country, factor, and sub-factor scores. The site features the Index’s dataset, as well as global, regional, and income group rankings.

Section IV: Project Design 25 section V

Appendix

Photo: Katarina, Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) Appendix

Methodological Materials

QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS' QUESTIONNAIRES (QRQS) The Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires (QRQs) measure the experiences and perceptions of in-country experts and practitioners in the fields of civil and commercial law; constitutional law, civil liberties, and criminal law; labor law; and public health. These questionnaires address the performance of the state and its agents, and the actual operation of the legal framework in their countries. Administered annually, the QRQs gather timely input on a range of topics, including information on accountability mechanisms, corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, the strength of regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice.

World Justice Project Qualified Respondents' Questionnaires 2019 – Survey Instruments

GENERAL POPULATION POLL (GPP) The General Population Poll (GPP) was designed to capture high-quality data on the realities and concerns of the general public on a variety of themes related to the rule of law, including government accountability, corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice.

World Justice Project General Population Poll 2019 – Survey Instrument

VARIABLES USED TO CONSTRUCT THE WJP RULE OF LAW INDEX® This table lists the question-level variables from the Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires and the General Population Poll used to construct the eight factors and 44 sub-factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index. It also lists the third party sources (TPS) that are used in select factors and sub-factors.

Variables Used to Construct the WJP Rule of Law Index® 2020

Section V: Appendix 27 About the World Justice Project THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT (WJP) is an independent, multidisciplinary organization working to advance the rule of law worldwide. Effective rule of law reduces corruption, combats poverty and disease, and protects people from injustices large and small. It is the foundation for communities of justice, opportunity, and peace—underpinning development, accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights.

WJP builds and supports a global, multidisciplinary movement for the rule of law through three lines of work: collecting, organizing, and analyzing original, independent rule of law data, including the WJP Rule of Law Index®; supporting research, scholarship, and teaching about the importance of the rule of law, its relationship to development, and effective strategies to strengthen it; and connecting and building an engaged global network of policymakers and activists to advance the rule of law through strategic partnerships, convenings, coordinated advocacy, and support for locally led initiatives.

Section V: Appendix 28 Other Publications

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 Insights WJP Mexico States Rule of Highlights and data trends from the Law Index 2019-2020 WJPRule of Law Index 2020 Perceptions and experiences in 32 states

Realizing Justice For All Global Insights on Access to Justice 2019 Measuring the Justice Gap 2019 World Justice Forum Report 2019 Findings from the World Justice Project A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet General Population Poll in 101 Countries Justice Needs Around the World

For more information or to read these reports, visit worldjusticeproject.org/our-work

Section V: Appendix 29