The defense teams of the former Kosovo Liberation Army commanders have announced that they will appeal the guilty verdict handed down by the trial panel of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague on September 16.
Të lidhura
None found
Hashim Thaçi was sentenced to 25 years in prison on four war crimes counts, Jakup Krasniqi was also sentenced to 25 years, while Kadri Veseli received 18 years and Rexhep Selimi 13 years in prison.
All four former KLA commanders were found criminally responsible for war crimes including unlawful or arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture and unlawful killing. When delivering the judgment in The Hague, the trial panel dismissed the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office’s charges of crimes against humanity.
The four former KLA commanders have been in detention in The Hague since November 2020.
The trial panel’s ruling may be appealed by the parties involved. The defense may seek to have the judgment overturned in its entirety or seek a reduction of the sentences on certain counts, while the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office may also seek harsher sentences.
The Specialist Prosecutor’s Office welcomed the guilty verdict and added that it would review the entire judgment, including the dismissal of the counts related to crimes against humanity.
But what procedures must the parties follow to appeal?
Under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, parties appealing the court’s judgment, sentence or both must file what is known as a notice of appeal, setting out the grounds for the appeal, within 30 days of the judgment being delivered.
The presiding judge of the Court of Appeals panel, which consists of three members, may then appoint one of the judges as the pre-appeal judge. The pre-appeal judge is tasked with taking the necessary measures on procedural matters, such as issuing decisions, orders and instructions to prepare the case for review. The judge must regularly inform the Court of Appeals panel, particularly if there are disputes over procedural matters.
Within 21 days of the notice of appeal, the presiding judge or pre-appeal judge then convenes a conference at which issues relating to the appeal are raised.
The parties filing an appeal must submit an appeal brief containing all arguments and other legal authorities supporting the grounds for appeal. This must be filed within 60 days of the notice of appeal, or within 30 days if the matter concerns only the sentence imposed.
The parties then file what is known as a response brief, setting out their legal arguments. The filing deadlines vary: 30 days for arguments and legal authorities, and 15 days if the appeal concerns only the sentence, calculated from the filing of the brief. This is followed by a reply brief, for which the deadlines are shorter: 15 days, or 10 days if it concerns only the sentence.
After all these deadlines have passed, the Court of Appeals schedules a hearing “if necessary,” according to the rules.
The rules provide that the parties may submit additional evidence during the appeal proceedings and, if it is admitted, the other party may present evidence in rebuttal.
In reaching its decision, the Appeals Panel reviews any additional evidence admitted, as well as the evidence already in the case record.
Once the parties have completed their submissions, the Appeals Panel convenes, reviews the case and issues a judgment based on the appeal record and any additional evidence admitted.
The Court of Appeals may therefore affirm, reverse or revise the trial panel’s judgment, or order a retrial.
However, if the appeal is filed only by those found guilty, the Court of Appeals may not impose a harsher sentence than the one handed down at first instance.
The appeal judgment is delivered within 60 days of the parties’ final submission. Additional time may also be requested, but no more than one month, and any extension of the deadline must be justified.
Under the Law on the Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, there are three grounds on which first-instance judgments may be appealed: an error on a question of law that invalidates the judgment, an error of fact that has caused a miscarriage of justice, or an error relating to the sentence imposed.
If the parties are dissatisfied with the appeal ruling, the case may be taken to the Supreme Court and then to the Constitutional Court Chamber of the Specialist Chambers in The Hague.
The lawyers for former president Hashim Thaçi said the appeal process could take years.
The trial panel’s decision
Forty-one months after the trial began, the trial panel found the four former KLA commanders guilty of war crimes but dismissed the charges of crimes against humanity.
According to the trial panel, the four KLA figures, together with other leaders, sought Kosovo’s independence and the establishment of political and institutional control over an independent Kosovo.
According to the court, in pursuit of these objectives, they shared the view that certain individuals considered obstacles to their goals had to be “targeted,” “eliminated” or “neutralized.”
These individuals were said to include, among others, members or representatives of other political and military forces, particularly people affiliated with the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) and the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kosovo (FARK), people considered to have ties to the Serbian authorities, as well as members of the Roma and Serb communities.
When delivering the judgment, the trial panel said this common purpose had been implemented through killings, arrests and detentions without due process, as well as physical and psychological abuse, intimidation and the use of what the judgment calls “special warfare.”
The trial panel said that former Kosovo president Hashim Thaçi, former parliamentary speakers Jakup Krasniqi and Kadri Veseli, and former lawmaker Rexhep Selimi contributed to carrying out this common purpose.
In Thaçi’s case, the trial panel said he had played a key role in formulating and implementing the common purpose, while finding that he had also personally participated in some of the crimes, citing the case of Behajdin Allaqi.
Regarding Veseli, the Specialist Court cited his position as head of the KLA Intelligence Directorate, a body that, according to the trial panel’s findings, was responsible for identifying, monitoring and neutralizing people suspected of being “collaborators.” The Specialist Chambers said he took no steps to prevent, investigate or punish the crimes, despite knowing about them.
Regarding Selimi, the trial panel found that he had made a substantial contribution to implementing the common purpose. The court noted that his position as the KLA’s inspector general gave him less authority over other KLA members compared with some of the other defendants.
As for Krasniqi, who had served as the KLA’s spokesperson and a member of its General Staff during the war, the court found that he had used his position, leadership role, authority and status to implement the criminal aspects of the common purpose./RFE/
