The UÇK issue in North Macedonia: Experts analyze Ahmeti’s claims

Ali Ahmeti, chairman of the Democratic Union for Integration (DUI), has announced that he has information about initiatives before the Constitutional Court that could lead to the reopening of files from the Hague Tribunal, including allegations concerning an investigation into the UÇK over war crimes.

Ahmeti believes that revisiting these cases, which have been closed for more than 20 years, would reopen old wounds.

“I have been informed that there are initiatives before the Constitutional Court to reopen the Hague Tribunal cases, with the aim of indicting the National Liberation Army for war crimes.

This does not frighten me, but returning to an old wound causes more pain than opening a new one. These are matters that we concluded more than 20 years ago,” Ahmeti said.

Professor Sulejman Mehazi, speaking to “Bota sot,” warns that any attempt to revive cases related to the 2001 war could have serious political consequences and push North Macedonia toward destabilization.

“If Ali Ahmeti’s claim is accurate that, after 22 years, the Constitutional Court of North Macedonia may revive, investigate or examine alleged war crimes committed by the UÇK in North Macedonia during 2001, then this would mean provoking dangerous unrest for the Constitutional Court itself, Mickoski’s government and the fragile state of North Macedonia.

If the information provided by DUI leader Ali Ahmeti proves true, then it can be said without hesitation that Mickoski’s North Macedonia is heading toward division and disintegration. However, I do not believe that Mickoski and VLEN can agree to the Constitutional Court taking wrongful action against Albanian citizens, but also against Macedonian citizens,” Mehazi said.

According to the professor, Ahmeti’s statement may be nothing more than political propaganda. He nevertheless stresses that any action against the UÇK of 2001 would not affect only specific individuals, but all Albanians who contributed during the conflict.

“Perhaps this is simply political propaganda by Ali Ahmeti and nothing more. It may be intended to intimidate him and silence him as a nationalist opposition figure.

If the Hague Tribunal brings charges against the UÇK in North Macedonia, it would not be Ali Ahmeti alone who was indicted, even though he remained in Prizren during the 2001 war, but all Albanian citizens in North Macedonia who contributed during the war, from the youngest to the oldest,” he said.

Unlike Mehazi, Professor Kolë Krasniqi told “Bota sot” that Ali Ahmeti’s statement should be analyzed carefully, without turning it into an object of political dramatization.

Krasniqi explained that the matter concerns an initiative submitted to the Constitutional Court of Macedonia regarding the interpretation of the Amnesty Law, not a new indictment by the Hague Tribunal. According to him, this court has no authority to issue indictments or reopen criminal proceedings, but can only assess the constitutionality of the law. Any subsequent step would depend on the prosecution and the competent courts.

“Mr. Ali Ahmeti’s claim requires careful consideration, without political dramatization, but also without underestimating the legal complexity and interethnic sensitivity of the alleged issue concerning the Amnesty Law.

In fact, on February 16, 2024, Pavle Trajanov publicly submitted an initiative to Macedonia’s Constitutional Court seeking the repeal of the authentic interpretation of Article 1 of the Amnesty Law. This interpretation had made it possible to terminate proceedings in the four files known as: “UÇK Leadership,” “Lipun Lake,” “Neprosten Cemetery” and “Mavrovo Workers.” For this reason, it should be clarified whether Mr. Ahmeti is referring to this initiative or to another new one.

From a legal and terminological standpoint, these are not cases in which the Hague Tribunal issued final judicial decisions. They were files at the preliminary investigation stage conducted by investigators from the Hague Tribunal, whose Prosecutor’s Office had transferred them to the Macedonian justice system for further investigation and proceedings.

Macedonia’s Constitutional Court has no authority to indict the UÇK, draft an indictment or directly reopen criminal proceedings. Its authority is limited to assessing the constitutionality of the Amnesty Law or its authentic interpretation. Only if it is determined that the legal obstacle should be removed can the prosecution and relevant courts assess whether the legal requirements have been met and whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate specific criminal proceedings.

It should be remembered that in 2012 Macedonia’s Constitutional Court found that ‘the authentic interpretation did not constitute an appropriate act for constitutional review,’ while the Amnesty Law had previously been deemed consistent with the Constitution. Consequently, neither the admissibility of the new initiative, nor its possible legal effects, nor the political consequences that may arise from it are self-evident, let alone matters that can be prejudged,” Krasniqi said.

Regarding the possibility of reopening the proceedings, the professor believes it would be unjust if they were directed selectively only against former Albanian members of the UÇK or used for political purposes. According to him, justice must be based on evidence and individual responsibility. Cases may be reopened only when certain legal conditions are met, such as the presentation of new evidence, while respecting the principle that no one may be tried twice for the same offense.

“If a proceeding is reopened only because the suspects are Albanian or former members of the UÇK, this could be perceived as an injustice against Albanians.

Such a process would be seriously unjust if it were conducted selectively only against former Albanian members, if alleged crimes against Albanian civilians were ignored, if it were turned into a tool of political revenge, if it created the impression of the collective guilt of Albanians, or if the standards of a fair trial, legal certainty and the presumption of innocence were violated.

Crimes committed against Albanians were also examined by the Hague Tribunal. In the Ljuboten case, Johan Tarçulovski was found guilty of murder, cruel treatment and the destruction of Albanian civilians’ property, while Ljube Boškoski was acquitted. This case shows that justice must be based on evidence and personal responsibility, regardless of the ethnicity of the accused or the victim.

At the same time, international standards impose very strict limitations on amnesties covering war crimes or serious human rights violations. In the case of Marguš v. Croatia, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that criminal proceedings for war crimes may continue even when an earlier proceeding had been closed on the basis of an amnesty.

That does not, however, mean that every allegation can automatically be classified as a war crime. Such a classification requires credible evidence and must be confirmed through proper judicial proceedings.

For each individual, it must be verified whether a final decision exists and whether the principle of ne bis in idem applies, according to which a person may not be tried twice for the same offense. The European Convention permits the reopening of proceedings only in specified circumstances, for example when new facts or evidence emerge, or when the previous proceedings had fundamental deficiencies that affected their outcome,” the professor stressed.

In conclusion, Krasniqi warns that the politicized reopening of these cases could worsen interethnic relations and damage the spirit of the Ohrid Agreement. He believes that the 2001 conflict should be considered politically a closed chapter, while responsibility for serious crimes may be examined only through legal means, on the basis of evidence and individual responsibility.

“In my assessment, a selective and politicized reopening could have serious consequences for relations between ethnic groups in North Macedonia. It could revive narratives from the time of the conflict, increase Albanians’ distrust of institutions, provoke protests and damage the spirit of the Ohrid Agreement.

The main risk is not limited to the legal examination of the cases, but also includes the possibility that justice could be seen as a one-sided instrument for rewriting the nature of the 2001 conflict or collectively portraying the UÇK and Albanians as a criminal party.

In this context, it is essential to distinguish the political conclusion of the conflict from personal responsibility for serious crimes.

The military and political conflict must be treated as concluded. The Ohrid Agreement must be protected as the foundation of peace, equality and the state’s multiethnic functioning. Ordinary offenses related to the conflict that were legally covered by the amnesty must remain permanently closed, in the interests of legal certainty, interethnic harmony and institutional stability,” Krasniqi concluded in his remarks to “Bota sot.”