The Hague conceals the names of Serbian victims; 385 detained and 303 tortured, Albanians identified in detail in the judgment

The first-instance judgment of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers against Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Jakup Krasniqi and Rexhep Selimi documents grave figures: at least 385 people were arbitrarily arrested, 303 were subjected to torture, and 96 were killed.

But beyond these figures lies a central question: what was the ethnic composition of the victims, specifically how many of them were Albanians, Serbs or Roma? The 39-page public summary of the judgment does not provide such a breakdown. It does not specify what share of those arrested, tortured and killed belonged to each community.

The Trial Panel states in general terms that the crimes for which the accused were tried targeted “Serbs, Roma and, in particular, Kosovo Albanians.” The wording “in particular, Kosovo Albanians” indicates that Albanian victims occupy a central place in the court’s findings, but the summary provides no percentages or numerical ratios between the groups.

In the public document, Serbs and Roma are mentioned as categories of victims; nevertheless, not a single specific name of a Serbian person who was tortured or killed can be found. Nor is any family of Serbian origin described, and no individual case is documented showing that a particular Serbian person was arrested, mistreated or killed at a specified location and under specified circumstances. This does not prove that there were no Serbian victims—it would be wrong to draw such a conclusion from the summary alone—but it remains a fact that the material does not make it possible to verify the number of Serbs affected or the specific cases involving them. A fuller picture is expected to emerge only with the publication of the redacted version of the full judgment, which the court has announced it will release at a later stage.

In contrast to the general mention of Serbs and Roma, the specific episodes described in the judgment highlight Kosovo Albanians who had links to the LDK, FARK, the structures led by Ibrahim Rugova, or other Albanian political groups. These people were labeled “spies,” “traitors,” and “collaborators with Serbia,” as LDK supporters, FARK members, “Rugova’s soldiers,” and opponents of the KLA or its leadership.

One particularly well-documented episode concerns activist Behajdin Allaqi. According to the Trial Panel’s finding, Thaçi was personally involved in his capture, detention, transfer and killing. Allaqi was not Serbian, but an Albanian activist engaged in the national movement who was nevertheless regarded as an opponent by the structure that detained him.

Another event examined at trial was the detention of 13 members of an Albanian parliamentary delegation in Qirez and Baicë in September 1998. The delegation was primarily politically affiliated with the LDK and the institutions led by Rugova. The court found Thaçi’s personal involvement in the arrest, arbitrary detention and questioning of the parliamentarians, while Selimi was involved in their capture and detention in Qirez. Earlier statements about the case had also named Gjergj Dedaj, Agim Krasniqi, Sokol Bllakaj, Kurtesh Devaja, Mehdi Bardhi and Jusuf Telaku as people who suffered injuries as a result of mistreatment. Later, while testifying in The Hague, Dedaj softened his account and described some claims as exaggerated. Despite this change, the Trial Panel, relying on the body of evidence as a whole, maintained as a proven fact Thaçi’s involvement in the detention and questioning of the 13 representatives.

A key dimension of the judgment concerns the reasoning used to justify the arrests. Many victims were accused of being “spies,” “traitors” or “collaborators with Serbia.” According to the court’s findings, with limited exceptions, there was no evidence that the detained individuals had committed crimes, taken part in fighting or posed a real security risk. This changes how the victims should be described: they cannot be presented as “individuals with links to the Serbian authorities,” because that would turn an unsubstantiated label into a fact. The accurate formulation is that they were people accused of or perceived as being collaborators, often without credible evidence. In some cases, the label “spy” or “traitor” appears to have served simply as an instrument for identifying, arresting and eliminating Albanian political opponents.

The court found that the arrests and mistreatment took place in 14 municipalities in Kosovo and in two districts in northern Albania. In the Albanian territories, the population and formations present were almost entirely Albanian, reinforcing the need not to automatically identify the victims as Serbs or as genuine collaborators with Serbia. Testimonies describe detainees being kept tied up, beaten, inadequately fed and denied medical assistance. One witness compared them to “animals” because of the chains, while another said that he had remained with his hands tied for a long period. However, the public summary does not state the ethnicity of each witness, so it cannot be asserted with certainty that all of them were Albanian, nor that they were Serbian.

Based on the public document, four certain conclusions can be drawn. First, the court mentions Serbs and Roma as victims, but provides neither their numbers nor their names. Second, Kosovo Albanians are presented as the main category of victims, appearing in specific cases with identities, political affiliations and detailed circumstances. Third, some of the Albanian victims were supporters of the LDK, FARK and Rugova’s political line, or people considered political opponents. Fourth, most of the accusations of “espionage” and “collaboration with Serbia” were not supported by evidence that those accused had committed crimes or taken part in fighting.

In conclusion, the judgment cannot simply be presented as a trial concerning crimes against Serbs. The public summary shows that a substantial part of the case concerned the detention, torture and elimination of Albanians perceived as political opponents. The exact figures by ethnic affiliation remain unavailable. Until the redacted full judgment is published, any claim that all the victims were Albanian or that there were no Serbian victims at all would go beyond what the publicly available documents to date establish.

Sources: the official summary of the judgment, the Specialist Chambers’ announcement and the Reuters news agency.