When UN peacekeeping forces engage in unauthorized actions the question of which entity, the UN or the troop contributing nation, can be held responsible arises. UN peacekeeping forces are generally not considered to be UN subsidiary organs, but organs of the state put at the disposal of the UN. Therefore, a conduct of the peacekeeping force is attributable to the UN if it exercises effective control over that conduct.  The presumptive view of the effective control test consists of a presumption and a rebuttal phase. The conduct of a UN peacekeeping force is presumed to be attributable to the UN. If national contingents follow instructions from their contributing state and therefore fall out of the effective control of the UN, the presumption is rebutted. The presumptive view may, however, lead to responsibility gaps by presuming attribution to the UN, which enjoys immunity in national courts leaving victims without effective remedies. Dual attribution creates a possibility of attributing one conduct not only to the UN but also to the troop contributing nation. By applying dual attribution on conduct of UN Peacekeeping Forces some responsibility gaps could be avoided. If this possibility will be used in the future to ensure victims effective remedies, is up to the courts to decide.