BDI responds to Macedonian parties: The Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Kosovo Specialist Chambers have different legal statuses

BDI responded today to statements by Macedonian political parties regarding the decision of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, which convicted former KLA leaders.

The party expressed regret over their positions, saying that attempting to equate the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague with the Kosovo Specialist Chambers constitutes a serious mistake.

According to BDI, these are two institutions that differ both legally and institutionally. The Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established in 1993 through a resolution of the United Nations Security Council as an international court for crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Ratko Mladić was tried by the tribunal, along with other individuals, and the final ruling upheld the convictions for genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws of war. The same court, BDI points out, confirmed the legitimacy of the wars fought by the Kosovo Liberation Army and the National Liberation Army.

Unlike the UN tribunal, the Kosovo Specialist Chambers are part of Kosovo’s judicial system. They were established on the basis of a constitutional amendment and a law adopted by the Kosovo Assembly, while their seat was relocated to The Hague. The institution itself explains that the Chambers are integrated into the levels of Kosovo’s judicial system and reflect the country’s judicial structure.

For this reason, according to BDI, the decision of the UN Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia cannot be used to create the impression that every decision made in The Hague has the same nature and the same legal status.

BDI also emphasizes that an ongoing judicial process cannot be replaced by a political conclusion. Respect for justice, even when a process is considered distorted and entirely fabricated, as in the case of the decision of September 16, 2026, does not mean automatically accepting a first-instance decision. It requires respect for the full procedure, the right to appeal and the principle of the presumption of innocence.

“Justice requires the same standards, but also legal precision. The fact that a decision was made in The Hague does not automatically mean that it concerns the same tribunal, the same mandate or the same legal status,” BDI declared.

The party added that politicizing justice, manipulating facts and equating processes that have legal differences can only increase tensions and create room for unnecessary interethnic confrontations, which serve no one.