As the day approaches when the verdict is expected to be announced for Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Jakup Krasniqi and Rexhep Selimi, attention has focused on the possibility that the former KLA leaders could be convicted or acquitted.
Të lidhura
None found
“Bota Sot” asked artificial intelligence to examine the possible outcomes of the trial, based on the public indictment, the parties’ closing statements, evidence reported in open hearings and the criteria used in war crimes trials.
This assessment is not information provided by the Court and does not constitute a legal conclusion. Artificial intelligence has not had access to confidential evidence or testimony presented during closed-door hearings.
The most likely scenario is considered to be neither the full acquittal of all four defendants nor the acceptance of all the Prosecution’s claims.
Based on the analysis, the likelihood that all four defendants will be found guilty on at least some counts is estimated at between 50 and 60 percent.
A mixed verdict, in which one or more of them are acquitted while the others are convicted, is estimated to have a probability of between 25 and 35 percent.
Meanwhile, the likelihood of Thaçi, Veseli, Krasniqi and Selimi being fully acquitted is calculated at between 15 and 20 percent.
These figures do not stem from any official method used by the Court. They are merely an analytical calculation of possible scenarios, based on publicly available information.
The Prosecution claims that the four former KLA leaders were part of a joint criminal enterprise aimed at persecuting people identified as political opponents, collaborators with Serbia or opponents of the KLA.
The charges include unlawful detention, torture, persecution, murder and enforced disappearance. According to the Prosecution, most of the alleged victims were Kosovo Albanians, while Serbs, Roma and members of other communities were also among them.
In support of its case, the Prosecution has not limited itself to alleging that the defendants issued direct orders. It has also presented the theory of a joint criminal enterprise, contribution to a common policy and responsibility for crimes that, according to the Prosecution, could have been foreseen as a consequence of that policy.
The practice of international trials shows that the absence of a written order does not, in itself, rule out the possibility of a conviction. If a series of circumstantial evidence leads the trial panel beyond reasonable doubt to the conclusion that guilt exists, it may be taken into consideration.
On the other hand, the defence has argued that the Prosecution has not presented direct evidence showing that Thaçi, Veseli, Krasniqi or Selimi ordered murders, torture or disappearances.
Several international witnesses have also challenged the notion that the KLA General Staff exercised centralized and effective control over all units in the field.
This issue could carry particular weight in the verdict: a finding that certain crimes occurred does not automatically mean that the four defendants bear criminal responsibility for them.
The Prosecution must establish, for each defendant, the link to the crimes, his role or contribution and, depending on the form of responsibility, the relevant knowledge or intent.
The defence has argued that the Prosecution is treating the defendants’ political and military positions as equivalent to actual control over the people who may have committed the crimes.
The uncertainty surrounding the prediction is also linked to the fact that a significant part of the trial was conducted in closed hearings or under witness protection measures. As a result, the public does not have access to all the material that will be reviewed by the trial panel.
Therefore, any assessment based solely on what was heard in public hearings remains limited.
The artificial intelligence analysis views a complex verdict as the most likely outcome, with some counts potentially leading to convictions, others being dismissed and responsibility varying from one defendant to another.
The Prosecution’s request for sentences of 45 years for each defendant is considered less likely than the imposition of lower sentences, should the Court conclude that guilt has been proven.
Nevertheless, full acquittal also remains a legal possibility if the trial panel finds that the Prosecution has failed to link each defendant, beyond reasonable doubt, to the alleged criminal enterprise and the specific offences.
Artificial intelligence cannot predetermine the verdict. It merely compares scenarios using publicly available information, while the final answer will be given by the trial panel after it also assesses the evidence that has not been seen by the public.
This article is an experimental analysis of the possibilities put forward by artificial intelligence and does not prejudge the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants. All are presumed innocent until a final judicial decision is issued.
