A letter has been sent to the president of the Special Court, Ekaterina Trendafilova, by 22 leaders and members of civil society organizations, setting out several concerns about the judicial process in The Hague against former KLA leaders. The document also includes concrete requests.
The introduction to the letter stresses that its purpose is not to prejudge the Specialist Chambers’ decision-making, but to underline that the way this process against the former KLA leaders is conducted will produce not only legal consequences, but will also affect public trust, interethnic relations, and Kosovo’s perception of international justice.
The authors of the letter explain that this is not the first time they have reacted publicly. They recall that they had previously raised concerns about the admission as evidence of documents originating from Serbia’s institutions.
“This is not our first public reaction to the work of the Specialist Chambers. In August 2025, some of us publicly reacted to the admission of documents originating from Serbian state institutions. We argued at the time that such material required a higher level of scrutiny, given its source, historical context, and the role of Serbian state institutions during the 1990s. That concern has not disappeared. It has become part of a broader concern about justice, transparency, and public trust in the process,” the letter says, Gazeta Express writes.
In the document addressed to Trendafilova, seven main concerns about the course of the process are listed. The first point mentions the British report, which identified several problematic issues, as well as the way the Special Court approached that document.
“First, concerns about a fair trial are now documented, not merely alleged. The preliminary review prepared by the Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales (BHRC), commissioned by the Ombudsperson Institution of Kosovo, raised serious concerns regarding temporary release and prolonged detention, judicial independence and impartiality, the admissibility and reliability of evidence, equality of arms, legality, and institutional accountability. The Specialist Chambers have publicly challenged some of the characterizations in this report. We note that position. But a rebuttal is not enough. These issues go to the heart of whether the proceedings are perceived as fair in practice, and not merely formally valid on paper,” the letter says.
The second concern relates to detention since November 2020. According to the letter, the duration of this measure has created the impression that detention is taking on a punitive character before there has been a judicial ruling.
“Second, prolonged detention has become one of the most damaging issues for public trust. The accused in the Thaçi et al. case were transferred to the KSC detention facilities in The Hague on November 4 and 5, 2020. They have spent more than five and a half years in detention without a first-instance judgment. We understand that detention decisions are made by judges and that risks are periodically assessed. But from the perspective of many people in Kosovo, such a duration, combined with repeated refusals of temporary release, has created the perception that detention is turning into punishment before a judicial ruling,” the letter continues.
The letter goes on to underline that the way evidence coming from Serbian state institutions is treated remains a deep concern.
“We are not arguing that such documents should be automatically excluded solely because of their origin. We understand the distinction between admissibility and evidentiary weight. But documents produced by Serbian state bodies during the 1990s cannot be treated as ordinary administrative documents. Many of those same state structures were involved in repression, forced displacement, war crimes, denial, and organized disinformation against the Kosovo Albanians. For this reason, their origin, chain of custody, verification, and use in final findings require the most rigorous scrutiny possible.”
The fourth concern presented is the issue of collective responsibility and the Specialist Prosecutor’s definition of the former KLA leaders as a joint criminal enterprise.
“The distinction between individual responsibility and collective guilt has not been clearly protected in the eyes of the public. Formally, the case concerns four individuals. Politically and socially, however, many Kosovars see the process as a trial against the Kosovo Liberation Army, against Kosovo’s war for freedom, NATO’s humanitarian intervention, and the state-building process that followed. This does not mean that individual crimes should be ignored. They should not be ignored. But international criminal justice must be careful that individual responsibility does not turn into collective guilt. In Kosovo, many people do not hear this case merely as proceedings against four individuals. They have heard the Prosecution refer to the KLA as a whole as a joint criminal enterprise, portraying Kosovo’s war for freedom and the moral foundation of its statehood as the result of a criminal undertaking. This perception cannot be dismissed simply as emotion or nationalism.”
The letter also mentions earlier proceedings conducted by the Hague Tribunal, UNMIK, EULEX, and local courts, in which former KLA members were defendants. According to the signatories, a narrative that criminalizes the KLA war would weaken justice and increase the feeling that the process is sliding toward collective labeling.
“Our view on this is clear, as it is for the absolute majority of Kosovo’s citizens. We believe that the KLA waged a just and defensive war for Kosovo’s freedom against an oppressive and violent state apparatus led by Slobodan Milošević. We also reaffirm that wherever alleged crimes were committed, whether against civilians, political opponents, or members of minority communities, those crimes deserve justice. But this is not the first time such crimes have been addressed. The ICTY, UNMIK, EULEX, Kosovo’s courts, and now the Specialist Chambers have all dealt with war crimes cases related to Kosovo, including cases involving former KLA members. What is deeply troubling is the shift toward a narrative that risks portraying Kosovo’s war for liberation from Serbian oppression as criminal in nature. This would not strengthen justice. It would deepen the sense among many Kosovars that this process has moved from individual responsibility toward collective labeling.”
Another issue raised is the lack of public trust in the Special Court. The letter assesses that most Kosovo Albanians perceive it as biased, while Kosovo Serbs may see any acquittal as a failure. Likewise, victims from different communities may still feel unrepresented.
“Fifth, the Specialist Chambers have not built the public trust required. Their outreach activities have been too limited, too technical, and too distant from the everyday concerns of Kosovo’s citizens. As a result, many Kosovo Albanians see the Court as biased, many Kosovo Serbs may see any acquittal as a failure, while victims from different communities may still feel unrepresented.”
The signatories of the letter also express concern about the consequences that a Specialist Chambers ruling could have on the political and security fronts.
“A judgment delivered in a society that does not trust the process may deepen polarization, fuel disinformation, and create new space for actors who want to delegitimize Kosovo’s liberation war, its statehood, and its Euro-Atlantic future, as well as incite hostility between communities.”
In the letter, Trendafilova is also reminded of the possibility that Serbia and Russia could use the ruling to call into question the narrative of Kosovo’s liberation and its argument for statehood.
“The process that led to the creation of the Court has a contested political history. That history is documented in academic literature, which argues that strategic narratives, some of them linked to actors hostile to Kosovo’s statehood, influenced the path toward the establishment of the Court. We are not asking the Trial Panel to judge that history. We ask only that it be acknowledged that the ruling will be read in this context and that it will almost certainly be used by Serbia and Russia to delegitimize the narrative of Kosovo’s liberation and its argument for statehood, regardless of the content of the ruling.”
At the end of the list of concerns, the letter also addresses the temporal scope of jurisdiction, which it says raises doubts about selective accountability.
“The Court’s mandate extends until September 1999, after the deployment of KFOR and UNMIK. Holding KLA figures accountable for events that occurred under international administration, while international actors from that period are not subject to similar scrutiny, is perceived by many citizens of Kosovo as selective,” the document says.
After presenting the seven concerns, the authors of the letter also addressed several requests to the president of the Specialist Chambers.
Among them are a request for a substantive response to the issues raised by the British, clarification regarding admitted Serbian evidence, a review of the practice and reasoning behind the extension of detention, as well as enabling independent and long-term monitoring of the judicial process.
“Provide a substantive public response to the concerns raised by the BHRC’s preliminary report and the Ombudsperson Institution of Kosovo.
Apply and publicly explain an enhanced standard of scrutiny for contested evidence originating from Serbian state institutions of the 1990s.
Review the practice and reasoning concerning prolonged detention and temporary release.
Enable independent and long-term monitoring of the judicial process and its legacy.
Encourage diplomatic missions and funding states to support transparency, independent monitoring, and responsible public communication,” the letter says.
In conclusion, the letter stresses that it is not seeking impunity, but rather that every allegation of crimes be addressed through a process perceived as fair and impartial.
“Alleged crimes against civilians and war crimes, wherever they were committed and by whomever they were committed, deserve justice and accountability. But accountability must be carried out through a process that people can recognize as fair and impartial. A process perceived as selective, remote, and politically motivated cannot repair trust, nor can it support reconciliation. Justice and Kosovo’s statehood are not opposing goals. They should reinforce one another. Kosovo accepted the Specialist Chambers because it was told that justice, accountability, and international legitimacy would proceed in parallel. Now the Court and the states that support it have the responsibility to prove that this was not an empty promise,” the letter says.
The post 22 civil society representatives write to The Hague, list seven concerns about the trial of former KLA leaders appeared first on Albeu.com.
Login
