KLI urges the KPC to exercise caution in assessing Blerim Isufaj: The functioning of the SPRK must not be harmed

The Kosovo Law Institute (KLI) has expressed concern over the extraordinary meeting that the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council (KPC) has scheduled for today at 3:00 p.m., where the performance of the Chief Prosecutor of the Special Prosecution Office of the Republic of Kosovo (SPRK), Blerim Isufaj, will be reviewed.

According to the KLI, institutional accountability cannot serve as a justification for making hasty and unclear decisions regarding a chief prosecutor. The institute considers this particularly sensitive because the SPRK is handling cases related to the fight against organized and transnational crime, including cooperation with friendly states of the Republic of Kosovo.

The KLI believes that any reform of the prosecutorial system must strengthen citizens’ trust and protect the system’s independence from any perception of political influence.

The institute has called on the KPC, before taking any measure against the Chief Prosecutor of the SPRK, to take into account an important institutional precedent. At the end of 2025, the KPC dismissed Besim Kelmendi from his position as acting Chief Prosecutor of the State through a swift and contested procedure. In December 2025, the Supreme Court annulled that decision, declaring it unlawful.

The KLI calls for the Kelmendi case to serve as a lesson and for the KPC not to repeat hasty decision-making practices.

Any procedure that could affect the position or mandate of a chief prosecutor must be conducted in accordance with the Constitution, the applicable law, and judicial practice, the KLI stresses. According to the institute, the assessment of the work of the Chief Prosecutor of the SPRK should be based on the special nature and mandate of this prosecution office, and should be professional, fair, objective, impartial, and supported by measurable indicators.

At the same time, this process must respect prosecutors’ independence when handling individual cases. The KLI emphasizes that accountability must not be turned into a tool for interfering with the functional independence of a prosecutorial office, while independence cannot be used to evade responsibility. According to the institute, both principles must be applied equally, transparently, and in a balanced manner.

The KLI has questioned the urgency of holding such a meeting at a time when all available legal remedies have not yet been concluded and exhausted.

For this reason, the institute calls on the KPC to guarantee a fair and independent process, avoiding any decision that could harm legal certainty, the functionality of the SPRK, public trust in the KPC, and perceptions of the independence of the prosecutorial system.