Attachment 7_Mapping of Community Justice Needs_Justice Matters Activity 2018.pdf

JUSTICE MATTERS ACTIVITY

MAPPING OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE NEEDS

SEPTEMBER 24, 2018

October 2018

Submitted to USAID/Kosovo by the National Center for State Courts. The U.S. Agency for International Development Justice Matters activity in Kosovo is implemented by the National Center for State Courts under USAID Contract number 72016718C00002.

JUSTICE MATTERS

JUSTICE MATTERS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

ACRONYMS ii

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

B. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 2

C. METHODOLOGY 4

D. FINDINGS 6

1. Common Legal Problems 6

2. Access to Information 7

3. Dispute Resolution 9

4. Awareness and Trust 11

5. Impact of Economic Situation 12

6. Impact of Age 14

E. PROFILES OF JUSTICE SEEKERS 18

1. Poor / Low Income 18

2. Women 19

3. Disability 20

4. LGBTI 21

5. Ethnic Minorities 22

F. CONCLUSIONS 27

G. RECOMMENDATIONS 30

ANNEX 1 – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 32

ANNEX 2 – KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 37

ANNEX 3 – INDEX OF CHARTS AND TABLES 38

ACRONYMS

ACDC Advocacy Center for Democratic Culture CSO Civil Society Organization ECMI European Center for Minority Issues FLAA Free Legal Aid Agency HLC Humanitarian Law Center KBA Kosovo Bar Association KII Key Informant Interviews KLI Kosovo Law Institute NCSC National Center for State Courts OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Justice Matters activity is a three-year initiative funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to improve access to justice for all, inclusive of disadvantaged and marginalized groups, by strengthening the institutions, actors, and processes for providing legal aid services and legal information. Despite constitutional guarantees to free legal aid, Kosovo’s citizens struggle to connect to legal aid resources and information. Low levels of legal literacy and a lack of effective access to justice are most acute in Kosovo’s most vulnerable communities: women, non-majority communities, low-income citizens, and LGBTI. This mapping identifies the most pressing legal aid needs of Kosovo’s citizens and the groups most in need of legal aid and legal information.

Beginning in August 2018, Justice Matters initiated a Mapping of Community Justice Needs to analyze and prioritize legal aid and legal information needs of Kosovo’s citizens and identify the groups and communities most in need of additional resources, information, and assistance. The Community Justice Needs Mapping is designed to inform the Justice Matters activity and programming from other development partners on how to support Kosovo’s citizens and communities in accessing legal aid and how to prioritize the dissemination of legal information. The Mapping builds on previous donor investments into Kosovo’s legal aid and legal empowerment programs including two 2017 studies published by NCSC and the Kosovo Legal Institute (KLI) highlighting resource gaps in providing free legal aid in criminal and administrative cases.

Research was conducted between July and August 2018 by a team of field researchers coordinated by Justice Matters Chief of Party, and analyzed with the support of Justice Matters Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Advisor. The research included distribution of questionnaires and key informant interviews to collect information on common legal problems, access to legal information, dispute resolution, and trust in legal and judicial actors. The target groups include Kosovo citizens surveyed from 5 of Kosovo’s 7 regions: Prishtina, Prizren, Peja, Gjilan, and Mitrovica region. Through the Community Justice Needs Mapping Initiative, Justice Matters collected a total of 240 questionnaire responses and conducted 14 key informant interviews with justice sector actors and civil society activists involved in legal aid provision and access to legal information to obtain important information from practitioners on their insights and experiences. The survey population included 114 women and 126 men from 5 of Kosovo’s 7 regions. 139 survey responses came from Kosovo’s Albanian majority and 101 responses from non-majority communities.

Findings of the surveys and interviews identify priority areas for legal aid services in administrative (social welfare) disputes, domestic violence, and labor and property disputes. Access to legal information among women and the Ashkali and Roma communities was also identified as a priority area. Finally, the lack of trust in Kosovo’s justice institutions and legal actors exacerbates gaps in access to quality legal representation and legal information among Kosovo’s most vulnerable groups and communities. Based upon these findings, recommendations focus on expanding access to quality legal information, increasing access to legal aid services, improving the quality of legal representation received through legal aid providers, and increasing the trust in Kosovo’s legal aid and justice sector institutions. Recommendations to address the needs of underserved groups and communities are:

● Use both traditional media and CSO networks to improve their access to quality legal information.

● Expand the reach of the FLAA and expand legal aid services provided through CSOs and university legal clinics to improve access to free legal aid services.

● Improve the quality of free legal aid services provided to Kosovo’s citizens and underserved groups and communities.

● Address the lack of trust in Kosovo’s legal and justice sector institutions and actors to encourage all of Kosovo’s citizens to seek legal aid and information when needed.

B. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

General As of December 2017, the population of Kosovo was 1.8 million1, with women representing approximately half of the population and a majority (55.6%) of citizens under the age of 30. Estimated from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Center for Minority Issues (ECMI) the ethnic composition is 87% Albanians, 8% Serbs, and the remaining 5% of the population is made up of other communities, including Turkish, Bosniak, Gorani, Roma, Ashkali, Egyptian, Croat, and Montenegrin communities.2 Unemployment is high (29%), especially among youth (54%). Women were not economically-active in significantly higher percentages than their male counterparts. In 2018, only 12% of women were employed, compared to 45.5% of men. The Kosovo Statistics Agency reports than men earn on average 5.9% more than women. Certain ethnic communities are also disproportionately affected. The unemployment rate among the Roma community stands at 60%, with an estimated income of 119 euros a month.3 Similarly, unemployment rates within the Ashkali and Egyptian communities stand at 60% and 80%, compared to approximately 38% among Serb, Turkish, and Bosniak communities.

The Constitution guarantees the right to free legal assistance for those without sufficient financial means if such assistance is necessary to ensure effective access to justice. Under the Law on Free Legal Aid (2012)4, all citizens and residents of Kosovo are eligible for free legal aid provided they meet certain financial and legal criteria. According to UNDP, in 2017, 3,288 people benefited from legal aid services, out of whom 13% were from minority groups and 49% were women.5 Access to justice is particularly low among the most socio-economically disadvantaged ethnic communities with Roma and Ashkali communities typically showing low levels of legal literacy or legal action. According to Humanitarian Law Center Kosovo (HLC Kosovo), the number of cases involving a member of a non-majority ethnic community increases year by year. This mainly relates to non-contentious litigation procedures and inheritance matters, the most common cases in municipal courts. The numbers of criminal cases involving a member of a non-majority community are relatively constant, and, with slight variations, it remains the same every year.6Despite the efforts of civil society organizations to provide information about free legal aid to marginalized groups, lack of information remains a major issue within non-majority communities. Non-majority ethnic communities are also affected by institutional and societal barriers that include poor or lack of translation services in proceedings before the courts, limited numbers of non-Albanian staff, inconsistency between Kosovo-Albanian and Serbian versions of legislation, and the lack of a functional judiciary in northern Kosovo.7

Trust and Satisfaction Despite making notable progress, judicial institutions in Kosovo continue to show a lack of efficiency in solving cases, with low accountability by court officials and limited political intervention. According to the Kosovo Judicial Council, in January 2017, there were 126,431 civil and criminal cases waiting for judicial review8. Over 74,505 measures imposed by judicial decisions were expected to be

1 Kosovo Agency of Statistics, ‘Evaluation of Population 2017’, Available in Albanian at: http://ask.rks-gov.net/media/4118/vlersimi-i-popullsise- 2017.pdf.

2 European Center for Minority Issues, ‘Communities in Kosovo: A guidebook for professionals working with communities in Kosovo’, Available at:

http://www.ecmikosovo.org/uploads/ECMIKosovoDec2013GuidebookforProfessionalsENG.pdf. Official ethnic data is incomplete due to the boycott of the 2011 census by Serb-majority populations in North Kosovo.

3 UNDP, ‘Kosovo Human Development Report 2012: Private sector and employment’. – As terms for comparison in the framework of Kosovo, consider: average monthly salary per person in Kosovo in general is 260€, the lowest in the region after Albania; unemployment among Albanians is rated 47.02%.

4Law No. 04/L-017 on Free Legal Aid, Available at: https://gzk.rks-gov.net/ActDetail.aspx?ActID=2803.

5 UNDP, Achievements Report 2017, available at: http://www.ks.undp.org/content/dam/kosovo/docs/ResearchAndPublications/UNDP- AchievementsReport2017-ENG-INTERACTIVE.pdf.

6 Humanitarian Law Center Kosovo, ‘Assessment of Minorities’ Access to Justice in Kosovo Report 2010’, available at: http://www.hlc-kosovo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Izvestaj_pristup_pravdi_stampa-eng.pdf.

7 Department of Justice, ‘Kosovo 2017 Human Rights Report’, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/attachments/2018/04/24/dos-hrr_2017_kosovo.pdf#page=26.

8 Kosovo Judicial Council, Available in Albanian, Courts Statistical Report for 2017, at:

file:///C:/Users/Botek/Downloads/RAPORTI%20I%20PERGJITHSHEM%20VJETOR%202017.pdf.

http://ask.rks-gov.net/media/4118/vlersimi-i-popullsise-2017.pdf http://ask.rks-gov.net/media/4118/vlersimi-i-popullsise-2017.pdf http://www.ecmikosovo.org/uploads/ECMIKosovoDec2013GuidebookforProfessionalsENG.pdf http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/khdr2012-eng.pdf https://gzk.rks-gov.net/ActDetail.aspx?ActID=2803 http://www.ks.undp.org/content/dam/kosovo/docs/ResearchAndPublications/UNDP-AchievementsReport2017-ENG-INTERACTIVE.pdf http://www.ks.undp.org/content/dam/kosovo/docs/ResearchAndPublications/UNDP-AchievementsReport2017-ENG-INTERACTIVE.pdf http://www.hlc-kosovo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Izvestaj_pristup_pravdi_stampa-eng.pdf http://www.hlc-kosovo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Izvestaj_pristup_pravdi_stampa-eng.pdf http://www.hlc-kosovo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Izvestaj_pristup_pravdi_stampa-eng.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/attachments/2018/04/24/dos-hrr_2017_kosovo.pdf#page=26 https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/attachments/2018/04/24/dos-hrr_2017_kosovo.pdf#page=26 executed9. Corruption in public institutions is considered endemic. As of June 2017, Kosovo's Special Prosecution Office had received 38 cases from the Kosovo Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).10 The ACA provided one case to the basic prosecution office in Mitrovica/e. Convictions on corruption charges continued to represent a small proportion of those investigated and charged, with the ACA receiving 160 allegations for corruption. The public perception of endemic corruption is worsened by the lack of access to public documents. While Kosovo has a law on access to public documents, civil society organizations and the media still struggle to secure access to this information. These factors affect citizen trust in their judicial institutions and their ability to provide effective remedies.

The satisfaction level of citizens with the judiciary remains low. According to Public Pulse, only 31.2% of Kosovo citizens are satisfied with the courts and only 29.9% are satisfied with the work of the Prosecutor’s Office. The satisfaction levels with the Prosecutor’s Office and central institutions are the lowest when compared to all other institutions. This suggests that loss of trust in the rule of law and governance has influenced the overall satisfaction levels with all other institutions.11

This dissatisfaction also extends to individuals working within the court system such as lawyers. A survey conducted by JSSP and D+ revealed that lawyers are displeased with the often-long process to settle cases. Civil cases can take twelve to twenty-four months to complete and criminal cases can last from six to twelve months largely because of delays and procedural errors by the courts. In addition, 13% of the lawyers who responded to this survey said that they have been asked for a bribe by a judge, court employee, or an intermediary of the court employee acting on behalf of another. The combination of public dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction from within the legal system creates an atmosphere that continually erodes trust in judicial institutions across the country.

Challenges to Legal Aid System In 2017, a study conducted by NCSC with KLI pointed to insufficient funding as one of the key challenges to legal representation for citizens in both criminal and administrative law disputes.12 Out of 667 defendants in the cases monitored by KLI, 457 (68.51%) did not have legal representation. The KLI report documented lawyer representation in criminal hearings and tracked whether hearings were held as scheduled or adjourned. High rates of adjournments (205 out of 524 hearings monitored) and unrepresented defendants (457 out of 667 defendants in 524 hearings were unrepresented) were recorded in criminal hearings. For those criminal defendants who had representation, one-fifth (32) were represented by an ex-officio lawyer. This analysis further confirms chronic legal representation gaps undermining the principle of equality of arms and violating the rights of defendants in criminal cases.

Another report conducted by NCSC and KLI confirmed challenges and deficiencies identified via monitoring and flagged additional issues of concern in the conduct of hearings in administrative disputes, including the lack of proper legal representation.13

9 Ibid.

10 Department of State, Kosovo 2017 Human Rights Report, available at: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/277425.pdf.

11 UNDP, Public Pulse XIV, June 2018, available at:

file:///C:/Users/Botek/Downloads/Final%2520Public%2520Pulse%2520XIV.pdf.

12 Kosovo Law Institute, Legal Aid in Criminal cases and application of European Court of Human Rights Standards in Kosovo Courts, available at: file:///C:/Users/Botek/Downloads/FLA-final-report_Eng_KLI.pdf.

13 Kosovo Law Institute, Effective Legal Remedies in Administrative Justice, available at: file:///C:/Users/Botek/Downloads/3.-Final-Admin- Report_English-Version.pdf.

about:blank about:blank about:blank about:blank

C. METHODOLOGY

The methodology of the Mapping of Community Justice Needs incorporated a mixed methods approach, using both quantitative and qualitative research. A survey was conducted to collect data on perceptions and experiences of legal disputes, access to legal information, and dispute resolution strategies. Binary questions were used to determine legal problems faced, legal information sought, or legal action taken. Multiple choice questions with fixed options and one open-ended option were used to identify perceptions and experience of legal disputes, access to legal information, and dispute resolution strategies. Questions using a psychometric five-point Likert scale were also used to measure the levels of satisfaction or knowledge of respondents. The complete survey questionnaire is included in English as Annex 1.

Qualitative research tools, including key informant interviews (KIIs), supplemented the data collected through the questionnaire. The KIIs were conducted using pre-determined questions and guidelines.

In August and September 2018, the Justice Matters Team conducted a total of 14 KIIs with FLAA Legal Department Director and Regional Officers, the Ombudsperson, and representatives of CSOs providing legal aid services. A complete list of interviews conducted is included in Annex 2.

Survey Sample The survey was administered in five of Kosovo’s seven regions—Pristina, Peja, Prizren, Gjilan, and Mitrovica—to ensure broad geographic coverage. Regional selection was based on the location of Free Legal Aid Offices and universities hosting live legal clinics. A total of 240 responses were received.

Respondents included 114 women and 126 men and 139 members of the Albanian ethnic majority community and 101 members of six ethnic minority communities—Serb, Ashkali, Egyptian, Roma, Bosniak, and Turk. Charts C.1 below provide an overview of the survey breakdown by gender, ethnicity, and region.

Charts C.1: Survey Sample—Gender, Ethnicity, Region

Respondents from the majority Albanian community were randomly selected through street interviews in the municipalities targeted for the survey. The random street selection provided a diverse sample in terms of income levels, with 32% reporting a household income less than 200 Euros and 34% between 200 and 400 Euros. Ethnic minorities were targeted in the areas where they live as identified in the mapping of communities done by ECMI.14 The enumerators traveled to pre-identified minority community areas and selected respondents randomly by targeting every third house. Men and women were targeted in similar proportions for both majority and minority communities. In addition, two sub-groups were specifically targeted based on special needs (disability) and sexual orientation. For these two sub-groups, sampling was done by referral from specialized CSOs providing services to these vulnerable sub-groups.

14 ECMI mapping available at http://www.ecmikosovo.org/en/Community-Profiles.

http://www.ecmikosovo.org/en/Community-Profiles

Research Limitations Survey sampling is not statistically representative of Kosovo’s population across ethnicity and regions.

Ethnic minorities were specifically targeted in communities where they live, and the small sampling of individual communities does not allow for regional comparisons or disaggregation by gender, socioeconomic status, or other non-ethnic parameters within the sample. Justice seekers with special needs and the LGBTI community were specifically targeted through CSOs, which may have skewed upward the percentage of respondents who had experienced legal disputes, sought information, or taken action to resolve them. The random selection of respondents from the majority community was conducted on the street in target municipalities. While the survey sample was representative in terms of gender and socio-economic distribution, only a few older (over 60) respondents participated, resulting in underrepresentation of this age group in the survey sample.

Despite these limitations, the survey responses provide a valuable snapshot of patterns of legal disputes and strategies for access to information and dispute resolution as perceived and experienced across Kosovo’s communities and vulnerable sub-groups. These patterns, and the conclusions that can be drawn from them, were confirmed and validated through the key informant interviews. As such, the mapping provides a sound basis to prioritize assistance to increase legal literacy and ability to pursue justice outcomes for Kosovo’s communities and vulnerable sub-groups.

D. FINDINGS

This section provides an overview of findings on the justice needs of Kosovo citizens and communities based on responses and key informant interviews.

1. Common Legal Problems

Respondents were asked to identify the most serious legal problems from a menu of ten fixed and one open-ended option. The five most serious problems were identified as disputes related to social welfare (21%), domestic violence (20%), labor (17%), crime (16%), and property (15%). These five problems were consistently identified as the most serious across communities and vulnerable sub-groups surveyed. Most key informants confirmed these disputes as the most common legal problems experienced by legal aid beneficiaries. Notable differences, however, were identified in the determination of the most serious problem, with three main categories: social welfare disputes, domestic violence & crime, and property & labor disputes. Table D.1.1 illustrates these differences.

Table D.1.1 – Most Serious Dispute(s) by Community

Communities reporting dispute as most serious Social Welfare Disputes Roma (71%)

Low-income (under 200 Euros) respondents (38%) Individuals with special needs (35%) Women (25%)

Domestic Violence & Crime LGBTI community (domestic violence 55%, crime 40%) Serb community (domestic violence 30%, crime 45%)

Property & Labor Disputes Bosniak (property 50%), Egyptian (property 40%) Turk (labor 40%), Ashkali (labor 25%)

In the last four years, 85% of respondents have experienced one or more legal disputes. The number of disputes experienced range from one to eight disputes within the last four years with most respondents (77%) having experienced one or two disputes. Significant differences were noted based on ethnicity with 76% of Albanian Kosovars having experienced at least one dispute in the last four years compared with 95% to 100% for ethnic minority groups. Individuals with special needs also had lower experiences of legal disputes, with 75% having experienced one or more disputes. LGBTI respondents had the lowest level of experience with disputes at 50%.

The five most commonly experienced legal disputes were identified as disputes related to social welfare (26%), labor (23%), traffic accidents (20%), public services (16%), and property (16%). These results show a correlation between direct experience with legal disputes and perception of the most serious legal problems, except regarding domestic violence which is perceived as the most serious by 19% of respondents but was experienced as a legal problem by only 2%. This difference may be explained by the low level of reporting of domestic violence, meaning individuals who experience domestic violence do not seek legal remedies. Key informants from Femrat Aktive të Gjakoves and ACDC both highlighted domestic violence as a common legal problem among the Roma, Ashkali, and Egyptian communities and among the Serb community, respectively.

Overall, 59% of respondents reported their dispute as having significantly or severely affected their lives. The level of seriousness was perceived as higher by individuals who experienced disputes related to property (63%), public services (63%), labor (65%), and even more significantly, domestic violence (80%) and social welfare (85%). Social welfare disputes were experienced at higher rates among women (32%), low-income (under 200 Euros) respondents (48%), individuals with special needs (47%), and the Roma (75%) and Ashkali (37%) communities. These communities also experienced their dispute more severely than other communities. By contrast, labor disputes were more prevalent among the Serb community (35%), harassment and violence among the LGBTI community (50%), traffic accidents among the Turk (40%) and Bosniak (70%) communities, and property disputes among the Egyptian (30%) community. These differences are illustrated in Table D.1.2 below.

Table D.1.2 – Patterns of Legal Disputes by Selected Vulnerable Sub-Groups

Women Low-income Disabled Roma Serb LGBTI Most frequent legal dispute

Social welfare 32%

Social welfare 48%

Social welfare 47%

Social welfare 75%

Labor 35%

Harassment, Violence 50%

Seriousness of legal disputes

High/Severe 65%

High/Severe 84%

High/Severe 100%

High/Severe 95%

High/Severe 40%

High/Severe 40%

Respondents were also asked to identify the type of legal assistance most frequently needed. The majority (45%) selected legal advice, followed by assistance to draft complaints (26%), legal representation (16%), and legal information (13%). These types of assistance and their frequency correlates with answers provided by key informants when asked to describe the type of legal assistance they provide. Respondents aged 60 and older were most likely to need legal representation, with 33% reporting this type of assistance as the most frequently needed, twice the survey average. Table D.1.3 provides an overview of the disputes for which the different types of assistance are most frequently requested.

Table D.1.3 – Disputes by Frequency of Type of Legal Assistance Requested

Highest Frequency Second Highest Frequency Third Highest Frequency Legal Advice Divorce 71% Inheritance 67% Domestic violence 60% Complaint Drafting Social welfare 51% Labor 39% Public services 38% Legal Information Crime 43% Traffic accidents 20% Social welfare 15% Legal Representation Domestic violence 40% Business disputes 38% Property 25%

2. Access to Information

More than half of the respondents (56%) who experienced a legal problem sought legal information or advice. Among the communities and vulnerable sub-groups surveyed, low-income (under 200 Euros) women (20%) and members of the Roma (25%) and Ashkali (20%) communities were least likely to have sought information or advice when faced with a legal dispute. Based on key informant interviews, these communities and sub-groups were also identified as among the most disadvantaged when seeking access to justice and legal information.

To access information, most respondents contacted a lawyer (53%). Other sources of legal information or advice included family and friends (18%), the police (10%), online sources (7%), the FLAA (5%), and CSOs (2%). Access to information strategies are impacted by the type of dispute experienced, as illustrated in Table D.2.1. While most justice seekers contacted a lawyer as their priority source of information, in social welfare disputes they first went to the FLAA (36%), which was confirmed by FLAA Regional Officers in KIIs. In disputes related to public services, they first consulted online sources (33%).

Table D.2.1 – Main Information Source by Type of Dispute

Dispute Prevalence Information Source: I went to … A Lawyer Family/Friends Online Sources FLAA CSO

Overall 51% 21% 11% 8% 2% Social welfare 26% 27% -- 9% 36% 9% Labor 23% 48% 24% 14% -- 5% Accident 20% 50% 23% -- -- 3% Public service 16% 27% 27% 33% 7% -- Property 16% 73% 8% -- 4% -- Inheritance 4% 75% -- -- -- -- Business-related 4% 88% 13% -- -- -- Divorce 3% 80% 80% -- -- -- Crime 3% 67% -- -- -- -- Domestic Violence 2% 100% -- -- -- --

Of the respondents who sought information or advice, more than two-thirds were satisfied (56%) or very satisfied (11%) with the information or advice received. Higher satisfaction levels were noted among respondents who sought information from CSOs (100%), online sources (88%), police (73%), and lawyers (71%). By contrast, 100% of respondents who relied on mass media sources were dissatisfied with their ability to find information. When seeking information, lower satisfaction levels were recorded among the Serb community (47%) and low-income (under 200 Euros) respondents (59%).

The survey requested respondents who did not seek legal information or advice to provide their reasons from among six fixed choices. All of the 89 respondents who did not seek information provided their reasons. Among the main reasons cited by respondents were lack of money (43%) and the absence of knowledge or access to information sources (48%). These reasons were confirmed by key informants when asked to identify barriers to access for vulnerable groups. Respondents pointing to lack of access to information specifically identified lack of knowledge of where to go for advice (27%) and lack of institution or organization providing legal aid in their community (21%) as their reasons for not seeking information. More than one-third of respondents (35%) also noted disbelief that information would help them, which raises concerns about trust in the ability of the justice system to provide effective remedies. Other reasons cited included failure to obtain information or advice (2%) and lack of time (3%). There were no significant differences among the sub-groups surveyed although women and members of the Albanian, Roma, and Ashkali communities were more likely to be affected by lack of money than other ethnic communities. Lack of trust was high among women and members of the Serb community. This was reinforced by key informants from ACDC who mentioned lack of trust in the justice system as the main concern for members of the Serb community who reside in northern Kosovo.

Respondents were asked to express their usual and preferred legal information sources. The three main sources of legal information cited were justice institutions (42%), (including courts and the FLAA), family and friends (23%), and the Internet (17%). Data collected on preferred legal information sources indicates that citizens would prefer to decrease reliance on family and friends or the Internet and instead to have access to more information from justice institutions and CSOs. Chart D.2.1 below contrasts used and preferred information sources. When asked what their preferred sources of information would be for information on legal remedies, almost one-fourth of respondents mentioned justice institutions (59%) or CSOs (16%). All sub-groups surveyed, except members of the Turk community15, expressed a preference for obtaining legal information from justice institutions.

Chart D.2.1 – Used v. Preferred Information Sources for Legal Information

When asked to rank the frequency of use of four mass media sources—TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Internet—more than half of the respondents noted that they often or always rely on the Internet (70%) and TV (57%) while they rarely or never rely on newspapers (68%) or radio (72%).

15 Members of the Turk community preferred to obtain legal information from TV, radio, and newspapers (40%), with 30% preferring information from justice institutions.

3. Dispute Resolution

Almost two out of three (63%) respondents who experienced a legal problem took action to seek resolution of their dispute. Women (58%) and low-income (under 200 Euros) respondents were less likely to take action. Significant differences were also identified within minority communities.

Individuals from the Serb (70%), Turkish (80%), Egyptian (80%), and Bosniak (90%) communities expressed a higher likelihood of action. By contrast, low likelihood of action was identified in Ashkali (55%) and Roma (30%) communities. Key informants noted that there is a strong correlation between low levels of education and a low likelihood of action, especially among some of the more vulnerable communities. Disabled and LGBTI respondents had a higher than average likelihood of action, at 67% and 70% respectively.

To resolve their disputes, most respondents contacted law enforcement (police, 34%), consulted a lawyer (24%), or went to a justice institution (court, 23%). In addition, 20% of respondents took other actions, primarily going to a municipal or ministry office to exercise their rights to social welfare benefits or public service. Dispute resolution strategies are impacted by the type of dispute as illustrated in Table D.3.1 below. Individuals experiencing disputes related to traffic accidents, crime, or domestic violence were more likely to have gone to the police, while those experiencing disputes related to property, inheritance, or business would have gone to a lawyer, and those experiencing disputes related to labor or divorce would have gone to court.

Table D.3.1 – Main Action Taken by Type of Dispute

Dispute Prevalence Action Taken: I went to … The Police A Lawyer Court Family/Friends Other

Overall 34% 23% 23% 14% 20% Social welfare 26% 6% 28% 17% 6% 50% Labor 23% 9% 14% 36% 23% 23% Accident 20% 76% 9% 26% 12% 3% Public service 16% 18% 12% 12% 6% 60% Property 16% 33% 37% 37% 19% 4% Inheritance 4% 14% 57% 14% 43% -- Business-related 4% 17% 83% 33% -- -- Divorce 3% 33% 17% 67% 17% -- Crime 3% 83% 33% -- -- -- Domestic Violence 2% 100% -- -- -- --

While 59% of respondents rate their dispute as having had a significant (very high) or severe impact on their life, the level of seriousness did not affect dispute resolution strategies as much as factors of vulnerability. Dispute resolution strategies chosen by vulnerable groups varied, in part due to differences in the most frequent dispute experienced by these groups. Individuals from the Roma and LGBTI communities went to the police in higher percentages and relied significantly on family and friends. Conversely, women tended to rely on police and courts in equal proportions (24% each) while low-income respondents went to the police (32%) and municipal or ministry offices (30%). Members of the Serb community placed significantly more emphasis on going to a lawyer (43%). Table D.3.2 below provides an overview of dispute resolution strategies of these groups.

Table D.3.2 – Dispute Resolution Strategies of Selected Vulnerable Sub-Groups

Women Low-income Disabled Roma Serb LGBTI Likelihood of action

58% 47% 67% 30% 70% 70%

Main Action (first)

Police 24%

Police 32%

Municipality 60%

Police 83%

Lawyer 43%

Police 71%

Main action (second)

Court 24%

Municipality 30%

Lawyer 20%

Family & Friends 33%

Multiple answers

Family & Friends 29%

Most frequent Social welfare Social welfare Social Social welfare Labor Harassment, legal dispute 32% 48% welfare 47% 75% 35% Violence 50% Respondents were given the opportunity to choose up to three out of six fixed options to explain the reasons for their decision to take action to resolve their legal dispute. Two out of three (67%) respondents noted that their actions were aimed at “realizing or exercising their right”, indicating that most justice seekers first and foremost act with the intention to protect their rights. Actions taken were also motivated by recovery of property or money (24%), punishment (19%), and intangible benefits such as an apology (14%) or improvement to relationships (12%). Respondents who experienced crime or domestic violence disputes were more likely to have sought punishment for disputes related to crime or domestic violence while those who experienced disputes related to inheritance were more likely to have sought recovery of property or money.

Of the respondents who took action to resolve their legal dispute, few had achieved full resolution.

34% reported that their legal dispute was resolved in full or in part while 31% reported the dispute as ongoing and 35% reported that they were no longer taking action to resolve their dispute. Income level and employment status had a significant impact on the rate of abandonment of legal actions with 56% of low-income (under 200 Euros) respondents and 46% of unemployed respondents reporting having stopped taking action. Similarly, women (44%) and members of the Roma community (60%) were significantly more likely to have abandoned action than their counterparts from other communities. Key informants shed light on some of the reasons leading to abandonment of action and pointed to requests for payment of additional procedural costs (e.g., expert fees, notary fees, court expenses) and extended length of proceedings.

Respondents who did not take action to resolve their legal dispute were asked to select their main reason for not taking action from among seven fixed choices and one open-ended option. 70% of respondents who did not take action provided their reasons. The two main reasons cited by respondents were lack of money (49%) and lack of information on possible actions (30%). In addition, 29% of respondents noted disbelief that action would make a difference, which raises concerns about trust in the ability of the justice system to provide effective remedies. Other reasons cited included disbelief that the outcome would be fair (9%), failure to obtain information or advice (4%), fear of retaliation (4%), and lack of time (3%).

In cases in which the impact of the dispute had been rated as severe or significant, respondents who did not take action were more significantly affected by lack of money (64%) and lack of information on possible actions (36%). Notable differences were identified among the sub-groups surveyed. Low-income (under 200 Euros) and members of the Albanian and Roma communities did not take action due to lack of money or lack of access to advice. These challenges can be remedied with increased access to free legal aid services and to legal information. By contrast, women were prevented from taking action by both lack of money and a belief that action would make no difference. Members of the Serb, Turk, Bosniak, Ashkali, and Egyptian communities also refrained from action due to a belief that action would make no difference.

Table D.3.3 – Dispute Resolution Patterns by Selected Vulnerable Sub-Groups

Women Low-income Disabled Roma Serb LGBTI Likelihood of action 58% 47% 67% 30% 70% 70% Reason for not taking action (first)

Lack of money 49%

Lack of money 70%

Lack of money 40%

Lack of money 93%

Would make no difference

57%

Lack of time 67%

Reason for not taking action (second)

Would make no difference

35%

No access to info on actions 37%

Unsuccessf ul at getting info 40%

No access to info on actions 60%

Would not get fair outcome 29%

Would make no difference

33% Likelihood of resolution

28% 14% 0% 5% 58% 40%

Likelihood of abandonment

44% 56% 33% 60% 16% 20%

4. Awareness and Trust

Three in four respondents (75%) expressed at least a fair level of knowledge about their right to a lawyer, with more than half (53%) expressing a good or very good knowledge. By contrast, 58% of respondents lack knowledge of the right to free legal aid. All key informants interviewed stressed the need to raise awareness of free legal aid services, through FLAA or other providers, using all means of communication, including TV, radio, social media, flyers, street actions, etc. Knowledge levels were consistently lower among low-income (under 200 Euros) respondents, women, and members of the Serb, Roma, Egyptian, Bosniak, and Ashkali communities. Key informants also stressed that awareness levels are lower among low-income individuals, despite their being the primary target of free legal aid services. Table D.4.1 illustrates differences in awareness levels among selected vulnerable sub-groups.16

Table D.4.1 – Awareness Levels among Selected Vulnerable Sub-groups

Women Low-income Disabled Roma Serb LGBTI Right to a lawyer

46% 40% 60% 14% 25% 60%

Right to free legal aid

20% 15% 50% 5% 30% 50%

Together, lawyers and the FLAA represent the most trusted sources of legal services and assistance for three out of four respondents (76%). Lawyers were identified as the most trusted by 53% of respondents and the FLAA by 23%. Lawyers were the most trusted by communities and vulnerable sub-groups. Among those who cited lawyers as most trusted, the FLAA was trusted in the highest proportion by low-income respondents (under 200 Euros, 36% compared to 38% for lawyers) and members of the Bosniak community (40% compared to 50% for lawyers). By contrast, the FLAA was cited as the most trusted by members of the Roma community (76%) and individual with special needs (50%).

Friends and family ranked third with 14% of respondents identifying them as the most trusted source of legal services and assistance. The importance of personal networks is highlighted throughout the survey as a significant secondary strategy for justice seekers to obtain legal assistance. When faced with a dispute, 14% of respondents reported that they sought to resolve the dispute with help from friends or family and 17% that they sought legal information or advice from friends or family. In addition, 23% of respondents reported that they usually obtain legal information from friends and family. Reliance on relationship-based networks was especially prevalent in the LGBTI, Serb, and Roma communities. Members of the LGBTI community were three times as likely to have sought legal information from their network and twice as likely to have attempted to resolve their disputes through their network. Half of the individuals with special needs participating in the survey identify family and friends as their usual source of legal information, although they rely on friends and family in similar percentages as the survey average when experiencing a dispute. By contrast, one-third of respondents from the Serb (36%) and Roma (33%) communities had sought the help of their network to resolve the legal dispute they experienced. Differences in reliance on friends and family for legal assistance are highlighted in Table D.4.3.

Table D.4.3 – Reliance on Friends/Family Networks among Selected Vulnerable Sub- Groups

Wome n

Low-income Disabled Roma Serb LGBTI

16 Respondents from the disabled and LGBTI communities were identified through CSOs which provide services, including free legal aid, to these specific communities. This may explain the higher level of awareness among these communities and their higher level of access to legal information. At a minimum, this provides confirmation that CSOs can be effective in increasing access to legal information and legal aid services.

For legal action in dispute

15% 13% 10% 33% 36% 29%

For legal information in dispute

13% 16% 20% 20% 13% 50%

Usual source of information

24% 21% 50% -- 30% 25%

Respondents expressed trust in CSOs and live legal clinics as potential providers of legal assistance.

77% of respondents expressed trust or partial trust in CSOs to provide legal assistance, with only 11% disagreeing. Expressed trust was lower for live legal clinics (61%) with 23% of respondents neither agreeing nor disagreeing. This can be explained by the fact that live legal clinics are still new and citizens lack information about them as providers of legal assistance.17 The highest levels of likelihood of use of CSOs and live legal clinics were found among low-income respondents (79% & 69%), individuals with special needs (85% & 65%) and members of the Roma, Egyptian, and Bosniak communities. Table D.4.2 illustrates differences in trust levels among selected vulnerable sub-groups.

Table D.4.2 – Trust Levels among Selected Vulnerable Sub-Groups

Women Low-income Disabled Roma Serb LGBTI Lawyers Most Trusted

50% 38% 25% 24% 55% 75%

FLAA Most Trusted

23% 36% 50% 76% -- 15%

Trust in CSOs to assist

75% 79% 85% 95% 60% 80%

Trust in live clinics to assist

58% 69% 65% 80% 58% 70%

5. Impact of Economic Situation

Survey results indicate that the economic situation of defendants significantly impact the prevalence and seriousness of legal disputes among respondents. The economic situation of defendants also affects their ability to seek information and their strategies for dispute resolution. The most significant divergence noted was between individuals with a household income under 200 Euros and individuals with household income levels above 200 Euros, although some notable barriers to access to information and access to justice were also identified for individuals with household income levels between 200 and 400 Euros. Respondents in higher income categories showed consistently higher likelihood to have sought information and taken legal action when faced with a dispute. They also showed a higher likelihood of resolution for their dispute and lower beliefs that acting would be not be useful or would not result in a fair outcome.

Perception and Experience of Legal Problems—Lowest income justice seekers were twice as likely to perceive social welfare disputes as the most serious (38% compared to 21% survey average) and to have experienced a social welfare dispute in the last four years (48% compared to 26% survey average). The administrative nature of these disputes provides opportunities to help low-income justice seekers through a variety of mechanisms, including CSOs and live legal clinics. The top two legal disputes, perceived or experienced, varied widely depending on the economic situation of respondents, as illustrated in Table D.5.1 below.

Table D.5.1 – Legal Disputes Perceived and Experienced by Income Category

Perceived Experienced Income level Most Serious Second Most

Serious Most Frequent Second Most

Frequent

17 When administering the survey, the following information was given to respondents on live legal clinics prior to recording their answer on their level of trust in their ability to obtain legal assistance from these clinics: “Live legal clinics have been set up at several universities. Through these clinics, law students can work with lawyers to take pro bono cases.”

Under 200 Euros Social Welfare Labor Social Welfare Labor 200-400 Euros Domestic Violence Crime Property Public Services 400-1000 Euros Domestic Violence Crime Traffic accident Labor Above 1000 Euros Labor Crime Traffic accident Labor

The perceived impact of legal disputes on the life and livelihood of the individual affected correlates with his/her economic situation. On average, 59% of respondents who had experienced a legal dispute in the last four years perceived its impact as very high or severe. Low-income (under 200 Euros) justice seekers felt a high or severe impact at a much more significant level (84%) than all other categories of respondents, twice as many respondents with a household income of 200 to 400 Euros and three times more than respondents with a household income above 1000 Euros. The severity of impact decreases as the income increases, which was also confirmed by one of the FLAA Regional Officers.

Chart D.5.1 – Perception of Severity of Impact by Income Category

Information and Action to Resolve Disputes—Individuals in lower income categories were least likely to have sought information or acted when experiencing a legal dispute. This is of particular concern given that 95% of low-income (under 200 Euros) reported having experienced a legal problem in the past four years compared to 78% of respondents from other income categories. Chart D.5.2 illustrates the level of information sought and action taken by income category.

Chart D.5.2 – Respondents Seeking Information or Taking Action by Income Category

Lack of money was the most significant reason for not taking action for low-income (under 200 Euros) respondents—70% for not taking action, 58% for not seeking information. Key informants confirmed that lack of money is a significant barrier to access to justice and noted that many poor justice seekers will not seek legal aid because providing the documents and traveling to the FLAA office are already costs they cannot afford. By contrast, for respondents in the next income category (200 to 400 Euros) the main reason for not taking action related to trust in the system’s ability to provide a remedy or a fair outcome. One in four respondents with a household income of 200 to 400 Euros did not believe action or seeking information would help. In addition, one third of these respondents did not believe they would receive a fair outcome.

The information strategies of low-income (under 200 Euros) individuals rely heavily on access to lawyers or jurists of FLAA or CSOs in their communities—61% of low-income respondents who sought legal information went to a lawyer or the FLAA. Lack of knowledge about where to seek information and the absence of free legal aid services in the community were reasons why respondents in lower income categories (under 200 Euros; 200 to 400 Euros) did not seek information.

Dispute resolution strategies are affected by income levels with two thirds of low-income (under 200 Euros) individuals going first to the police (33%) or to a municipal or ministry office (30%) whereas half of individuals in the next income category (200 to 400 Euros) went to a lawyer or a court (25% each). Low-income respondents were not only more likely not to take action (see Chart D.5.2), they were also more likely as respondents from other income groups to abandon action (56% for respondents with under 200 Euros; 16% for respondents in other income categories).

Awareness and Trust—Low-income (under 200 Euros) individuals had low levels of awareness of their right to a lawyer (30%) and their right to free legal aid (16%), despite being the most in need of their services. The most trusted source of legal assistance and trust in the ability of CSOs and live legal clinics to provide legal assistance, also varied based on income, with lower income categories expressing higher trust levels in the FLAA and abilities of CSOs and clinics. Levels of trust are presented in Chart D.5.3 below. Low-income (under 200 Euros) respondents also expressed a significant preference (72%) to obtain information from justice institutions (e.g., courts, lawyers, FLAA) rather than independently.

Chart D.5.3 – Trust Levels by Income Category

6. Impact of Age

Survey results indicate that the age of defendants significantly impacts perceptions and experiences of legal disputes. While there was no pattern of divergence across age categories, the manner in which legal disputes were experienced and the strategies used to seek legal information or take legal action were distinct for each of the three age groups. All justice seekers 60 and older had experienced at least one legal dispute in the past four years and were more likely than other justice seekers to have taken action and to have obtained full or partial resolution.