Ali Ahmeti, leader of the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI), says he has information about initiatives submitted to the Constitutional Court that could bring issues related to the Hague Tribunal back under review, including allegations that the National Liberation Army (NLA) committed war crimes.
Të lidhura
None found
According to Ahmeti, reconsidering these cases more than 20 years after they were closed would reopen old wounds. He said the information he has points to initiatives before the Constitutional Court aimed at reopening the Hague Tribunal cases in order to bring war crimes charges against the National Liberation Army.
The DUI leader stressed that he is not afraid of this possibility, but said the pain caused by reopening an old wound is greater than that of a new wound. He added that these issues were closed more than 20 years ago.
Professor Sulejman Mehazi, speaking to “Bota sot,” warned that any attempt to revive the cases from the 2001 war could have serious political consequences and undermine North Macedonia’s stability.
Mehazi said that if Ali Ahmeti’s claims are accurate and North Macedonia’s Constitutional Court, after 22 years, can reopen, pursue or investigate the NLA’s alleged war crimes in North Macedonia during 2001, such a move would cause dangerous unrest for the Constitutional Court itself, Mickoski’s government and the fragile state of North Macedonia.
According to him, if the DUI leader’s information is true, North Macedonia under Mickoski’s leadership would be heading toward division and dissolution. However, Mehazi said he does not believe Mickoski and VLEN would agree to a harmful move by the Constitutional Court against Albanian citizens, as well as Macedonian citizens.
The professor did not rule out the possibility that Ahmeti’s warning is merely political propaganda. He also raised the suspicion that the DUI leader may be facing intimidation intended to silence his nationalist opposition rhetoric.
Mehazi emphasized that a Hague Tribunal case against North Macedonia’s NLA would not be directed only at Ali Ahmeti, who remained in Prizren during the 2001 war. According to him, it would affect all Albanian citizens in North Macedonia who contributed during the war, from the youngest to the oldest.
Unlike Mehazi’s warnings, Professor Kolë Krasniqi told “Bota sot” that Ali Ahmeti’s statement should be analyzed carefully, without political dramatization and without overlooking the legal complexity and interethnic sensitivity of the claims related to the Amnesty Law.
Krasniqi explained that there is a public initiative submitted by Pavle Trajanov to Macedonia’s Constitutional Court on February 16, 2024. The initiative seeks the repeal of the authentic interpretation of Article 1 of the Amnesty Law.
It was precisely this interpretation that made it possible to terminate proceedings in the four case files known as “NLA Leadership,” “Lake Lipkovo,” “Neprošteno Grave” and “Mavrovo Workers.” For this reason, according to Krasniqi, it must be clarified whether Ali Ahmeti is referring to this initiative or to another, new initiative.
In legal and terminological terms, the professor stressed that these are not cases in which the Hague Tribunal issued final judgments. They were preliminary investigation files compiled by Hague Tribunal investigators, which the Tribunal’s Prosecutor’s Office had transferred to the Macedonian judiciary for further investigation and prosecution.
Krasniqi explained that Macedonia’s Constitutional Court does not have the authority to bring charges against the NLA, issue an indictment or directly reopen criminal proceedings. Its role is limited to assessing the constitutionality of the Amnesty Law or its authentic interpretation.
Only if the Constitutional Court finds that the legal obstacle should be removed can the competent prosecutors and courts analyze whether the legal conditions have been met and whether the evidence necessary to initiate specific criminal proceedings exists.
He recalled that Macedonia’s Constitutional Court found in 2012 that the authentic interpretation was not an appropriate act for constitutional review. Earlier, meanwhile, the Amnesty Law had been deemed consistent with the Constitution.
Consequently, according to Krasniqi, neither the admissibility of the new initiative, its potential legal effects nor the political consequences it could cause are self-evident, and they should not be prejudged.
Addressing the possibility of reviving the proceedings, Krasniqi said such a process would constitute an injustice if applied selectively only against former Albanian members of the NLA or if it were used as an instrument to serve political interests.
According to him, reopening proceedings solely because the suspects are Albanian or former NLA members could be perceived as an injustice against Albanians. The problem would be particularly serious if the process were directed only against former Albanian members, while alleged crimes against Albanian civilians were set aside.
It would also be unjust if the proceedings were used for political revenge, if they created the notion of collective Albanian guilt or if they violated the right to a fair trial, legal certainty and the presumption of innocence.
Krasniqi recalled that the Hague Tribunal also examined crimes committed against Albanians. In the Ljuboten case, Johan Tarčulovski was found guilty of murder, cruel treatment and the destruction of property belonging to Albanian civilians, while Ljube Boškoski was acquitted.
According to the professor, this case shows that justice must be based on evidence and individual responsibility, regardless of the ethnic background of the victim or the accused.
On the other hand, he noted that international standards impose very strict limits on amnesties covering war crimes or serious human rights violations. In the case of Marguš v. Croatia, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the prosecution of war crimes could continue even when earlier proceedings had been terminated because of an amnesty.
However, Krasniqi explained that this does not mean every allegation can automatically be classified as a war crime. Such a determination must be based on credible evidence and established through due judicial process.
For each person, it must be individually verified whether a final decision exists and whether the principle of ne bis in idem applies, under which no one may be tried twice for the same offense.
The European Convention allows proceedings to be reopened only under certain circumstances. Krasniqi cited as examples the emergence of new facts or evidence, as well as cases in which the previous proceedings had fundamental flaws that affected their outcome.
In his final assessment, Krasniqi warned that a politicized and selective reopening of these cases could have serious consequences for interethnic relations in North Macedonia. Such a development, according to him, could revive conflict narratives, increase Albanian distrust of institutions, fuel protests and damage the spirit of the Ohrid Agreement.
He said the main risk is related not only to the legal review of the cases, but also to the possibility that justice could be seen as a one-sided tool for rewriting the nature of the 2001 conflict or collectively portraying the NLA and Albanians as a criminal side.
For this reason, Krasniqi called for a clear distinction between the political closure of the conflict and individual responsibility for serious crimes. According to him, the political and military conflict should be considered over, while the Ohrid Agreement should be protected as the foundation of peace, equality and the state’s multiethnic functioning.
The professor concluded that ordinary offenses connected to the conflict that were legally covered by the amnesty should remain permanently closed in the interests of legal certainty, interethnic harmony and institutional stability.
