Appeal upholds six-year prison sentence against Hysri Selimi for espionage

The Court of Appeals has rejected the appeals filed by the Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo and Hysri Selimi’s defense, upholding the six-year prison sentence for the criminal offense of espionage.

The Appeals Court ruling was drafted on October 23, 2026, while the court panel found that the judgment of the Basic Court in Pristina – Special Department, PS.no.55/2025, dated June 15, 2026, was correct. “Betimi për Drejtësi” reported on the matter.

Hysri Selimi was sentenced by the Basic Court in Pristina on June 15, 2026, to six years in prison for espionage.

The Special Prosecution had requested that the judgment be amended, alleging serious violations of the provisions of criminal procedure and challenging the decision on the criminal sanction. It had proposed that Selimi receive a longer prison sentence.

Meanwhile, attorney Ali Beka, Selimi’s defense lawyer, had filed an appeal alleging an incorrect and incomplete determination of the facts, serious violations of the provisions of criminal procedure, violations of the Criminal Code and an incorrect decision on the criminal sanction.

The defense had requested that the first-instance judgment be changed and Selimi acquitted, or that the case be remanded for retrial. Beka had also submitted a response to the Special Prosecution’s appeal.

The Appeals Prosecution had proposed that the Special Prosecution’s appeal be upheld as well-founded, while the appeal filed by Hysri Selimi’s defense counsel be rejected as unfounded.

The Appeals Court panel session during which the appeals were reviewed was held on October 7, 2026.

The Appeals Court found that the challenged judgment contained no serious violations of criminal procedure that could lead to its annulment. According to the second instance, the Basic Court’s decision was clear and contained no discrepancy between its reasoning and operative part.

The Appeals Court assessed that the judgment had been drafted in accordance with Article 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the Appeals Court, the reasoning provided by the first-instance court did not contradict the contents of the case file or the evidence administered during the trial.

Based on the evidence examined, the Appeals Court said that the Kosovo Intelligence Agency had assisted the investigation against Selimi for the offense of which he had been accused.

The Appeals Court concluded that the trial had established that Selimi had communicated with officials of the Intelligence and Security Agency of the Republic of Serbia, known as BIA, and had passed on information about the activities of KLA members, wartime killings, radicalized individuals and their participation in the war in Syria.

According to the ruling, Selimi became part of the ISIS terrorist organization after traveling to Syria on a mission assigned by BIA to inform its officials about the number of Albanians participating in ISIS. Even after serving his sentence for participation in terrorist organizations, he continued communicating with BIA members and regularly met with them on the territory of the Republic of Serbia.

The Appeals Court emphasized that Selimi was paid up to 700 euros per month for this cooperation and was provided with smartphones by BIA, which he used to communicate with its officials.

The defense’s claim that, after returning from Syria, Selimi had acted in coordination with officials responsible at the Kosovo Intelligence Agency and had undertaken the actions on their instructions was deemed unsupported by evidence by the Appeals Court.

The ruling states that the case file contained no evidence that Selimi had been recruited by the Kosovo Intelligence Agency. According to the Appeals Court, the investigation against him began after the agency reported him to the police and he came under surveillance, at a time when he was meeting and communicating with BIA officials.

The court assessed that, in his statement to the Prosecution, Selimi had not at any point declared that he had cooperated with the Kosovo Intelligence Agency. Nor had he mentioned any pseudonym of the person who had cooperated with the agency or who had been instructed by it to undertake the incriminating actions.

The Appeals Court stated that Selimi had cooperated with the Prosecution by admitting his years-long cooperation with the Serbian BIA, the actions he had undertaken and the payments he had received, and by expressing remorse for those actions. However, in his statements he had not said that he had been instructed by the Kosovo Intelligence Agency to carry them out.

According to the ruling, the criminal offense of espionage, for which Selimi was found guilty, does not necessarily require the transmission of classified information. For the offense to be established, it is sufficient to enter the service of a foreign intelligence agency, collect data or assist that service in another form.

The Appeals Court assessed that, in this case, the elements of espionage had been fulfilled through joining the foreign service, sharing the requested information, acting on the instructions of its officials and providing assistance to BIA.

The Special Prosecution’s claims that a heavier sentence should be imposed were deemed unfounded by the Appeals Court.

According to the ruling, the Basic Court had considered Selimi’s high degree of intent to commit the offense an aggravating circumstance. Fully aware of his actions and their consequences, Selimi had entered into cooperation with BIA in order to assist it by providing various information, according to the requests of its officials.

The Appeals Court emphasized that joining an intelligence service, considered in isolation, represents only simple intent. In this case, however, importance was attached to the duration of the cooperation, the fact that Selimi had had the opportunity to repent and withdraw from the activity, and the fact that he had left in 2012 but later returned.

Another aggravating circumstance was considered to be the fact that, at BIA’s request, Selimi had assumed the risk of traveling to Syria and joining the ISIS terrorist organization. According to the Appeals Court, these circumstances demonstrated a high degree of intent and commitment to committing the criminal offense.

The Basic Court had found no mitigating circumstances, although Selimi had admitted the actions he had committed during the preliminary proceedings and had confirmed most of the facts charged against him during the trial.

According to the Appeals Court’s reasoning, the Basic Court had not considered this approach an admission of guilt or an expression of remorse or regret, because Selimi had not declaratively admitted guilt. On the contrary, the court had assessed that he had attempted to evade criminal responsibility through unfounded claims in his opening statement.

However, the Appeals Court found that the Basic Court had erred by treating an element of the criminal offense itself—namely, joining a foreign intelligence service—as an aggravating circumstance, since this action constitutes one of the elements of espionage.

As aggravating circumstances, the Appeals Court panel considered the duration of the cooperation, the acceptance of payments and smartphones for committing the offense, Selimi’s departure from and return to the service, and his participation in the ISIS terrorist organization as part of his cooperation with BIA.

Conversely, the Appeals Court assessed that Selimi’s statement to the Prosecution, in which he had admitted all the actions, should be considered a mitigating circumstance. According to the court, he had also confirmed these circumstances during his opening statement at trial. Although he had not admitted guilt and had not expressed remorse or regret, his statement had helped clarify the criminal case.

Regarding the Prosecution’s request for an increased sentence, the Appeals Court assessed that the Prosecution had not identified any aggravating circumstance that the Basic Court had failed to take into account. Nor had it presented any other aggravating or particularly aggravating circumstance that would justify a higher sentence.

According to the second instance, the Prosecution had argued in general terms that the offense committed had endangered the legal order and that Selimi should receive a longer sentence. For this reason, the Appeals Court deemed the claim unfounded.

According to the Appeals Court’s assessment, the defense’s response to the Prosecution’s appeal contained no element that could have influenced the panel’s decision-making.

The Appeals Court concluded that the six-year prison sentence imposed on Hysri Selimi was consistent with the offense committed, the circumstances established and his criminal responsibility. According to the court, the sentence fulfilled the purpose of punishment and would prevent the defendant from committing criminal offenses in the future.

The Appeals Court also assessed that the sentence would have a general deterrent effect, encouraging other people to refrain from committing criminal offenses.

The panel that issued the decision consisted of presiding judge Albina Shabani Rama and members Kreshnik Radoniqi and Avni Mehmeti.

At the initial hearing held on September 23, 2025, Hysri Selimi had pleaded not guilty.

According to the indictment filed by the Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo on September 9, 2025, Selimi was accused of continuously assisting the Intelligence and Security Agency of Serbia, known as BIA, from November 2009 until his arrest on May 6, 2025, as a person recruited by that agency.

The indictment charged him with collecting and sending information about the activities of KLA members, wartime killings, radicalized individuals and the number of their participants in the war in Syria.

According to the Prosecution, BIA officials had provided Selimi with smartphones and financial means, and had also promised to buy him a house. At their request and on their instructions, he traveled to Syria on November 22, 2015, via Istanbul Airport, on a mission assigned by BIA.

The indictment alleged that Selimi initially joined the ISIS terrorist organization and later sent BIA officials information about the number of Albanians participating in ISIS, their organization and the areas of Syria where they operated.

After returning to Kosovo and serving his sentence for participation in terrorist organizations, Selimi continued meeting with BIA officials, according to the indictment. Among them were BIA’s director for combating terrorism and another official, with whom he met in Vranje, Niš and Bujanoc.

The Prosecution said that Selimi informed them based on tasks assigned earlier. The information concerned radicalized individuals, the development of Wahhabi currents in Kosovo, their influence, the number and functioning of “mesjhide,” religious spaces where religious rites are performed, as well as other important data.

According to the indictment, BIA officials paid Selimi up to 700 euros per month for this information and provided him with smartphones for communication.

The Prosecution alleged that through these actions Selimi had seriously endangered and severely damaged the constitutional legal order and security of the Republic of Kosovo. According to the indictment, he had also helped the Serbian BIA create a harmful narrative regarding Kosovo’s statehood.

For these actions, Hysri Selimi was charged with the criminal offense of “Espionage,” under Article 124, paragraph 3, in conjunction with Article 77 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo.