Jakupi after 99 votes in the Assembly: Criminal responsibility must not be equated with the KLA

Political analyst Zejnullah Jakupi commented for “Bota sot” on the approval of the Kosovo Assembly’s declaration regarding the judgment of the Specialist Chambers in The Hague against four former KLA leaders. According to him, the declaration’s support with 99 votes demonstrates a common institutional position on the issue.

Jakupi said that the participation of LDK lawmakers in the vote shows that the Assembly managed to find common ground on a sensitive issue, even though political parties continue to hold differing positions.

“The fact that the Assembly’s declaration was approved with 99 votes in favor represents an important institutional development. The joining of LDK lawmakers in this vote shows that, in the face of such a sensitive issue, the Assembly was able to find a common position, despite political differences.

However, it is important that this process and the judgment in The Hague be interpreted accurately. The impression must not be created that a judicial process against four former KLA leaders automatically represents a trial of the entire KLA.

The distinction must be clear: if the court examined the allegation of a joint criminal enterprise, responsibility in this case is attributed to specific individuals and their actions, on the basis of the evidence and the court’s findings. It cannot automatically be extended from four individuals to all KLA members, nor to the KLA’s war as a whole,” Jakupi said.

He also stressed that the possible criminal responsibility of individuals must be separated from the historical assessment of the KLA and its war to liberate Kosovo.

“We must distinguish between two different issues: on the one hand is the possible criminal responsibility of individuals for certain actions, while on the other is the historical assessment of the KLA and its war to liberate Kosovo. These two elements are not the same.

The British ambassador’s statement that the process in The Hague concerns individual responsibility must also be viewed in this context. There may be debate and disagreement over how the court reached certain conclusions, but it is not right for every decision against individuals to be automatically viewed as a conviction of the KLA as a whole.

Presenting every judgment against the four individuals as a decision against the entire KLA would mean broadening the meaning of a process that, in legal terms, has specific subjects and responsibilities. Such an approach helps neither preserve the historical value of the KLA’s war nor strengthen the legal argument.

For this reason, criticism of the British ambassador must also be formulated carefully. Kosovo may disagree with one of his statements and explain the reasons for that disagreement, but it is not in its interest for the debate over The Hague to turn into a confrontation with its strategic allies. The United Kingdom has been and continues to be one of the states that has provided important support to Kosovo,” he stressed.

Addressing the LDK vote, Jakupi clarified that the party’s support for the Assembly’s declaration does not necessarily mean that it has changed its position on political killings and its murdered members.

“The LDK’s vote for the declaration does not mean that its positions on political killings and the party’s murdered members have necessarily been forgotten or changed. These issues concern justice and responsibility and must continue to be addressed.

However, they should not necessarily be placed in opposition to the right of former KLA members to a fair trial or to their right to challenge a judgment through legal remedies.

Consequently, the Assembly’s 99 votes may be considered a common institutional position on this particular issue, but they do not necessarily represent the disappearance of political and historical differences between the parties,” Jakupi added.

In conclusion, the analyst called on Kosovo to convey its message clearly by separating the defense of the KLA’s war from individual criminal responsibility.

“Kosovo must state clearly: it defends the KLA’s war and its historical right to liberate Kosovo, but it cannot demand that individual criminal responsibility be replaced by collective responsibility. If criminal responsibility exists, it must be individual, supported by evidence and determined through a fair process.

This is also the essential distinction: the trial of four individuals must not automatically be equated with the trial of the entire KLA. A joint enterprise, if established by the court, concerns the individuals and specific actions involved in that case. It is not synonymous with the entire organization, all its members or the KLA’s entire war.

For this reason, efforts to amend the Law on Specialist Chambers inevitably place the state of Kosovo in conflict with the EU and its allies,” Jakupi concluded in his remarks to “Bota sot”.