The judgment against Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Jakup Krasniqi and Rexhep Selimi has included in its reasoning seven other KLA figures: Lahi Brahimaj, Fatmir Limaj, Sylejman Selimi, Rrustem Mustafa, Latif Gashi, Shukri Buja and Sabit Geci.
Të lidhura
None found
These seven individuals were not accused in this trial. They did not sit in the dock, did not have defense teams to challenge the evidence, and no guilty verdict was issued against them.
Yet their names are now part of an international judgment and are linked in it to a serious legal characterization. This raises the question of how someone can be described as a participant in a criminal enterprise without being accused and without having had the opportunity to defend themselves.
The case is complicated also because the mention of these individuals was not made simply within the context of the KLA’s history. According to the reasoning of the trial panel, some of them served as links between the four convicted men and actions carried out on the ground by other persons.
The four former KLA leaders were convicted on the basis of the role that, according to the court, they had in a joint criminal enterprise. The court described its purpose as the identification, arrest, detention, mistreatment and, in certain cases, murder of persons considered opponents, “spies” or “collaborators.”
Because the accused were not themselves present at every detention site and were not alleged to have personally committed all the crimes, the court needed to explain who implemented this purpose across different areas and structures.
In this context, Fatmir Limaj, Sabit Geci, Rrustem Mustafa and Latif Gashi were characterized by the trial panel as “zealous implementers” of the criminal purpose that, according to the judgment, targeted opponents. Thus, the seven names were used in building the argument linking the four convicted men to crimes committed by other persons.
However, being mentioned in a judgment is not the same as being found guilty. A person’s name in judicial reasoning does not constitute an indictment, an arrest warrant, a criminal complaint, a guilty verdict or a prison sentence.
Even the summary of the judgment emphasizes that no guilt was established against the seven individuals and that they continue to be protected by the presumption of innocence. If in the future the Prosecution were to file an indictment against any of them, a new trial would have to take place.
In such a trial, individual responsibility would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused would have the right to challenge witnesses, documents and the interpretation of events. For this reason, the judgment against the four cannot automatically be transformed into a guilty verdict against the other seven individuals.
The most debated issue relates to their right to defend themselves. The seven figures were not parties to the proceedings, yet they are linked in the judgment to an enterprise described as criminal. They could not present a specific defense against this characterization, nor could they challenge it through the same appellate remedies available to the four convicted men.
Geoffrey Nice, former prosecutor at the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has called the manner of including these seven names unprecedented. In his view, the court could have described the enterprise as carried out by the accused and other persons without it being necessary for unaccused individuals to be publicly identified.
Nevenka Tromp, a researcher at the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, interpreted this as a kind of “retrospective criminalization” of the central leadership structure of the KLA. These positions are expert assessments and not legal decisions, but they show that the publication of the names of unaccused persons may be one of the most controversial points of the judgment.
So far there is no public announcement that the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office is preparing an indictment against any of the seven individuals. The Prosecution has known the names and the allegations since the indictment against the four was filed in 2020. The fact that no separate indictment has been filed in six years is an important indicator, although it does not constitute an absolute legal guarantee.
Their procedural positions are not the same. Lahi Brahimaj and Fatmir Limaj were tried and acquitted by the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Limaj was also acquitted in the “Klečka” and “Bellanica” cases in Kosovo.
Sylejman Selimi, Rrustem Mustafa and Latif Gashi have gone through judicial proceedings in Kosovo for war crimes. Selimi was acquitted in the retrial of one of the cases.
Sabit Geci was convicted in Kosovo of war crimes against civilians, while Shukri Buja has not been tried for war crimes. According to his statement, the Specialist Prosecution closed the investigation against him in 2024.
According to lawyer Artan Qerkini, the Prosecution discontinued investigations against Sylejman Selimi in February 2025.
The principle prohibiting double jeopardy protects persons for acts and facts that have already been addressed by a final decision. However, this principle does not necessarily preclude the investigation of another event, if it was not part of the previous trial.
Likewise, the closure of an investigation is not always equivalent to a final judgment. In certain circumstances, an investigation may be reopened if new evidence emerges. Currently, however, there is no public data suggesting that such a thing is happening.
For the moment, the most direct consequence for the seven individuals is not arrest or indictment, but potential political and reputational damage. The characterization included in the judgment may be repeated in international reports, political debates, media and Serbian propaganda, even though they were not tried in this process.
There is also a risk that public opinion may not distinguish a person mentioned in the reasoning of a judgment from a person found guilty. Therefore, every media report must clarify that the seven figures were not convicted by the judgment of September 16.
The defense of Thaçi, Veseli, Krasniqi and Rexhep Selimi is expected to challenge on appeal the existence, composition and alleged purpose of the joint criminal enterprise. If the second instance changes this part of the judgment, the legal framework in which the seven figures were mentioned may also change.
In any case, they do not have the same possibility of appeal, since they were not parties to the proceedings. They cannot appeal the judgment as if they were accused persons, even though their names are now included in the findings of the first instance.
Herein lies the main paradox: the judgment may have a huge impact on their reputations, but they do not have at their disposal all the legal remedies that an accused person would have to challenge these findings.
The court needed to explain how, in its view, the alleged criminal purpose was implemented from the leadership structures down to the ground. But the public identification of people who were not accused raises serious questions about procedural fairness and their right to be heard.
The seven figures were not found guilty and cannot be publicly treated as convicted persons. At the same time, their mention is not an insignificant detail, because it was used as part of the legal mechanism through which the court built the responsibility of the four convicted men.
Whether this reasoning will survive the appeals process remains to be seen. Until then, the essential distinction must be preserved: four people have been convicted at first instance, while seven others have been mentioned without being accused and continue to be presumed innocent.
Sources: Public summary of the judgment of the Specialist Chambers; Radio Free Europe; statements by Geoffrey Nice, Nevenka Tromp, Artan Qerkini and Shukri Buja.
