On September 16, 2026, the Specialist Chambers found Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi guilty of war crimes, specifically unlawful detention and arrest, cruel treatment, torture and murder. They were acquitted of crimes against humanity. This verdict has sparked widespread discussion not only in the legal sphere, but also in the political and diplomatic sphere concerning Kosovo.
Të lidhura
None found
The decision brings back to attention not just the judicial fate of the former KLA leaders, but also how it could affect the international perception of the country, ties with the United States and the European Union, and Pristina’s aspirations to strengthen its position on the international stage. In this context, one of the main tasks for Kosovo institutions is to ensure that the debate over the verdict does not turn into a political conflict with allies, but is addressed with legal and diplomatic arguments. Meanwhile, the issue remains part of a broader process, as further judicial steps are expected after the first-instance judgment.
Analyst Zejnulla Jakupi, in an interview for “Bota sot”, stresses that the September 16 decision should be seen primarily as a judicial act concerning the personal criminal responsibility of the convicts and not as a judgment against the state of Kosovo or the KLA’s war. He recalled that the Specialist Chambers themselves noted that the accused were convicted of war crimes while being acquitted of crimes against humanity because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a widespread or systematic attack against civilians had occurred.
According to Jakupi, the impact on foreign policy will be more political and at the level of perception rather than legal. He underlined that Kosovo relies on close relations with the USA and European countries, and that the establishment of the Specialist Chambers was the product of cooperation with Western partners. For this reason, the reaction of Kosovo institutions is crucial to show that they respect the rule of law and international mechanisms. He does not expect the verdict to bring a radical change in relations with the West, since allies have a mutual interest: respecting the independence of the judiciary and maintaining Kosovo’s political stability. Any attempt to present the decision as a condemnation of the state would complicate Pristina’s diplomatic communication.
Jakupi adds that a more noticeable impact could appear in how Kosovo manages its international image, especially given the roles that Thaçi and Veseli have played in the country’s foreign policy and international consolidation. However, institutions can clearly separate individual responsibility from state subjectivity, which is essential. He also stressed that the judicial process does not end with the first-instance verdict and that it must be avoided to treat it as the final resolution. There are further judicial procedures and the Specialist Chambers have already initiated steps for victim compensation.
Regarding Kosovo’s international subjectivity, the analyst sees no reason for the verdict to be considered a legal blow to statehood or independence. The court dealt with individual criminal responsibility for actions committed during the war and did not rule on the country’s international status, a key distinction for Kosovo’s diplomacy. What might change, according to him, is the political context in which Pristina conducts its diplomacy. Kosovo must be careful that the discussion on the verdict does not escalate into a clash with Western allies or a crisis of confidence with international institutions. Instead, diplomacy can emphasize that Kosovo, despite the pain and debate, handles justice issues through institutions and legal channels.
Jakupi assesses that the decision could mark a new phase in how Kosovo builds its international narrative. The challenge will be to preserve the memory and perception of the 1998–1999 war, separating it from individual responsibility for specific crimes. If this separation is carried out institutionally and with moderation, the verdict will not automatically mean a weakening of relations with the West. The long-term impact will depend on the reaction of political institutions, parties, and society. An approach that respects the legal process and argues in defense of the country’s interests would give Pristina more room to cope with this difficult moment.
In conclusion of his analysis, Jakupi argues that the Specialist Chambers should continue to exist for a long time, perhaps even several decades, until Kosovo’s justice system is fully consolidated. The reason is that there are still important matters requiring fair and professional treatment, while the domestic system has not always been able to ensure full independence, effective witness protection, and trials based solely on facts and evidence. According to him, the debate should not focus only on whether these Chambers exist or not, but on the standards of justice we want to build. When the local judicial system is able to consistently guarantee independence, witness security, and fair trial, then the transfer of responsibilities can be seriously discussed. Until then, a specialized international mechanism serves as a guarantee that the most sensitive matters are handled according to the same legal standards, regardless of who the accused are. Justice, he concludes, should not be built on political affiliation or public pressure, but on facts, evidence, and a fair process.
On the other hand, professor Nijazi Halili sees the Hague judgment as a development of particular legal and international weight, which, beyond the consequences for the convicts, opens a debate on its reflection on Kosovo’s image and relations with key partners. He believes that Kosovo should address this matter with institutional calm and measured diplomacy. The judgment against individuals should not be equated with the international position of the Republic of Kosovo, but the international perception of this development could be important for diplomacy, especially in relation to the USA and the EU.
Halili suggests that, alongside the appeals process, it would be useful to consider the possibility of an independent international legal expertise, with specialists in international criminal law, human rights and evidence assessment from the USA and European countries. Such an analysis would not replace the judicial process, but would provide a professional evaluation of the judgment and important legal issues for the next steps. On the diplomatic front, Kosovo should continue communication with Washington and Brussels in a reasoned and institutional manner, as strengthening international subjectivity requires institutional credibility, respect for justice standards and the ability to handle sensitive issues through law and argument. In conclusion, the professor emphasizes that this judgment should be seen as a moment that requires a deep legal analysis, careful diplomacy and a responsible approach to Kosovo’s international relations.
