After 81 years in prison at first instance, the case of the four heads to the Appeals Court

The trial of Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi did not end with the judgment announced on September 16. Although the first-instance court sentenced the four former leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army to a combined 81 years in prison, the case is now expected to continue before the Appeals Court.

The judgment imposes prison sentences of 25 years each on Thaçi and Krasniqi, 18 years on Veseli and 13 years on Selimi. The defense teams are expected to challenge the judgment and seek to have it amended at the next stage of the proceedings.

The trial panel found all four responsible for war crimes related to arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture and murder. At the same time, they were acquitted of crimes against humanity because the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there had been a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population.

Can the judgment be overturned in its entirety?

One possible defense request is a full acquittal. However, achieving such an outcome would be significantly more difficult than securing reduced sentences or overturning specific findings made at first instance.

This is because the judgment was not based on a single incident or charge. The panel reached conclusions regarding the criminal responsibility of each of the four accused in relation to hundreds of victims and several types of war crimes.

According to the Court, the accused are responsible for the arbitrary detention of 385 people, the cruel treatment of 49 people, the torture of 303 people and the murder of 96 people. Given the scope of these findings, overturning the judgment in its entirety becomes far more complicated.

To reach a verdict of complete acquittal, the Appeals Panel would essentially have to overturn the first-instance findings of guilt. However, the difficulty of this scenario does not mean that the judgment cannot be amended.

The Specialist Chambers’ practice to date shows that the Appeals Court has intervened in first-instance judgments, overturning certain findings and reducing sentences.

The Mustafa case: From 26 years to 15 years in prison

One of the most significant cases illustrating the possibility of a judgment being amended is that of Salih Mustafa. In December 2022, he was sentenced to 26 years in prison for the war crimes of which he had been convicted.

One year later, in December 2023, the Appeals Court reduced his sentence to 22 years. Then, in July 2024, the Supreme Court sent the case back for reconsideration with regard to the sentence.

In September of that year, the Appeals Court imposed a new sentence of 15 years in prison. His original 26-year sentence was therefore ultimately reduced to 15 years.

This precedent does not mean that the same outcome will be repeated for Thaçi, Veseli, Selimi and Krasniqi. It does, however, show that the length of a sentence can be changed significantly during appeals proceedings.

The Shala case: Findings overturned and sentence reduced

The proceedings against Pjetër Shala also provide a significant example. Shala was initially sentenced to 18 years in prison, while in July 2025 the Appeals Court reduced his sentence to 13 years.

In this case, the intervention by the second-instance court was not limited to the number of years in prison. The Appeals Panel overturned several specific findings related to certain individuals, including findings of torture and arbitrary detention.

The Appeals Panel found that, for some of these findings, there was insufficient evidence that had been tested through testimony in court. Despite this, the convictions for the principal offenses remained in force.

Shala’s case shows that the Appeals Panel can amend individual parts of a judgment without having to overturn the decision in its entirety.

A new phase in the legal battle for the four KLA leaders

These are precisely the issues on which the next legal battle by the defense teams of Thaçi, Veseli, Selimi and Krasniqi is expected to focus. The defense teams may ask the Appeals Court to overturn the findings of guilt, amend parts of the judgment or, alternatively, reduce the sentences.

A full acquittal may remain one of the defense’s objectives. However, the gravity of the charges, the large number of findings and the volume of evidence examined during the first-instance trial make it far more difficult to overturn the entire judgment than to amend specific parts of it or reduce the prison sentences.

The proceedings themselves have been extraordinarily extensive. In the Thaçi et al. case, the Court admitted thousands of items of evidence, heard a large number of witnesses and conducted proceedings that continued for years.

For this reason, the appeal is not expected to be limited to a request for shorter prison sentences. The defense teams may challenge the way the evidence was interpreted, the determination of each of the four accused’s individual responsibility and the specific findings concerning the criminal offenses of which they were convicted.

After 81 years in prison were imposed, the case passes into the hands of the Appeals Court

Previous cases show that a first-instance judgment in The Hague does not necessarily mark the end of the proceedings. In Mustafa’s case, the sentence was reduced from 26 years to 22 years and then to 15 years. In Shala’s case, the 18-year sentence was reduced to 13 years.

In Shala’s case, in addition to reducing the sentence, the Appeals Court also overturned several specific findings, although it upheld the principal convictions.

Following the combined 81 years in prison imposed at first instance on Thaçi, Veseli, Selimi and Krasniqi, the defense teams will now have an opportunity to seek to have this outcome changed.

Securing a full acquittal appears to be a difficult path, particularly given the large number of findings and the serious charges examined at the initial trial. Nevertheless, reduced sentences, amendments to specific findings or the reversal of parts of the judgment remain possible scenarios that will be considered by the Appeals Panel.

For the four former KLA leaders, the legal proceedings in The Hague have now entered a new phase.