During the discussion, different opinions were presented, in regard of research results and in regard of their recommendations. For example, UNMIK left behind a whole range of institutions committed to protection of collectives, but this also gives rise to the risk of unnecessary overlapping of competences. Therefore, in this view, reform of structures in the field of protection of collectives, in the sense of rationalization and more precise formulation or competences, should be conducted. A dilemma about the justification of Offices of communities, unforeseen by the Law on Local Self Government, still remains unresolved. According to the opinion of a number of participants in this discussion, those Offices should be kept because they present an address that members of collectives carrying certain demands related to protection of their rights are accustomed to visit. However, there were also other opinions that propose transfer of competences from this Offices to the Committees for communities and to Deputy Presidents responsible for communities, which would be a way to avoid overlapping competences. Another additional argument supporting this view is the fact that these Offices are spending means from the budget, which is not in keeping with the Law on Finances. Position of experts in this regard was that these Offices should be kept nevertheless, and their existence and scope of operation should be defined by the law. Even more so because there are some municipalities where Deputy President for communities was not yet elected, which makes those Offices even more important for given communities.