Albanian Parliament Unites Across Party Lines to Condemn Hague Sentences of Former KLA Leaders
Government and opposition MPs adopt a unanimous declaration rejecting the first-instance convictions of Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi, while calling for coordinated legal and diplomatic action with Kosovo.
Albania’s Parliament displayed rare political unity on September 17, 2026, one day after the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague convicted four former senior leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army. MPs from the governing majority and opposition expressed deep indignation (zemërim) over the judgment and described the sentences as profoundly unjust. Parliament adopted a joint declaration (deklaratë) setting out a common position on the verdict and the historical role of the KLA. The cross-party consensus (konsensus) was notable in a political environment otherwise characterised by frequent disagreements between government and opposition.
The declaration concerned former Kosovo President Hashim Thaçi, former parliamentary speaker Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi. The four received a combined 81 years of imprisonment (burgim) in the first-instance judgment delivered on September 16. Thaçi and Krasniqi were each sentenced to 25 years, Veseli received 18 years and Selimi received 13 years, with credit (njohje) for time already spent in detention. Because the judgment is at first instance, the defendants retain the right to pursue an appeal (apel) and the convictions are not yet final.
The Kosovo Specialist Chambers found all four men guilty of several war crimes committed during the 1998–1999 conflict. The Trial Panel found them criminally responsible for arbitrary detention (ndalim arbitrar) involving 385 people. It also found responsibility for torture (torturë) involving 303 people and cruel treatment involving at least 49 individuals. The court additionally found them responsible for the murder (vrasje) of 96 people.
At the same time, the judgment did not accept every allegation brought by prosecutors. All four defendants were acquitted (shpallën të pafajshëm) of the six counts of crimes against humanity because the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that there had been a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. They were also found not guilty in relation to several specific alleged incidents (incidente) of war crimes. This distinction is important to understanding the scope (fushëveprim) of the judgment rather than treating the verdict as a conviction on every charge originally presented.
The Albanian Parliament reacted by strongly separating the criminal proceedings against individuals from its interpretation of the KLA’s broader historical role. Its declaration reaffirmed what MPs described as the liberating (çlirimtar) character of the KLA’s struggle against the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milošević. Parliament argued that Kosovo’s armed resistance arose from years of repression (shtypje), violence and persecution against Kosovo Albanians. MPs insisted that no individual judgment should be allowed to delegitimise (delegjitimojë) what they regard as Kosovo’s struggle for freedom and independence.
Speaker Niko Peleshi read the joint declaration at the opening of the parliamentary proceedings. The document expressed Albania’s full solidarity (solidaritet) with Kosovo, its institutions, its citizens and the families of the four convicted former leaders. It said Parliament’s belief in the four men’s innocence (pafajësi) remained unchanged despite the Trial Panel’s findings. The declaration simultaneously called for all available legal remedies (mjete juridike) to be pursued through the appropriate judicial procedures.
That position creates an important distinction between a political declaration and a judicial determination. Parliament’s statement represents a political assessment (vlerësim) adopted by Albanian lawmakers and does not overturn the judgment of the Specialist Chambers. The Hague court remains institutionally independent (i pavarur) from Albania’s Parliament and governments in both Tirana and Pristina. Any actual modification of the convictions or sentences must therefore come through judicial proceedings (procedura gjyqësore), principally the appeals process rather than a parliamentary resolution.
The Specialist Chambers itself also stressed that the case was not a trial of the Kosovo Liberation Army as an organisation. In its judgment summary, the Trial Panel explicitly separated individual criminal responsibility (përgjegjësi penale) from the legitimacy of the KLA or Kosovo’s objective of independence. The case concerned the specific conduct (sjellje) attributed to Thaçi, Veseli, Selimi and Krasniqi under the indictment. That distinction is a crucial legal nuance (nuancë) because the court and the Albanian Parliament approached the broader historical meaning of the verdict from different institutional perspectives.
Albanian lawmakers were particularly concerned that the convictions could be used politically to reshape public interpretations of the Kosovo war. The joint declaration rejected any attempt to create an equivalence (barazim) between the KLA and the Serbian forces responsible for widespread violence during the conflict. It warned against the political instrumentalisation (instrumentalizim) of the verdict by Serbia or Russia. Parliament argued that such narratives could produce a historical distortion (shtrembërim) by obscuring the circumstances that led to Kosovo’s armed resistance.
The declaration consequently devoted substantial attention to crimes committed under the government of Slobodan Milošević. Albania pledged to continue raising alleged Serbian war crimes, sexual violence and other atrocities (mizori) in international forums. MPs also criticised what they described as insufficient Serbian accountability (llogaridhënie) for crimes committed during the Kosovo conflict. Parliament promised to continue seeking greater international recognition (njohje) and justice for victims of those crimes.
The Albanian position also criticised the continued public glorification of individuals convicted of crimes connected with the conflicts of the former Yugoslavia. Such glorification was described as an obstacle to regional reconciliation (pajtim) and as disrespectful toward victims. Parliament argued that selective remembrance can produce dangerous double standards (standarde të dyfishta) when one set of crimes receives intense attention while another is minimised or denied. It presented a more comprehensive approach to historical accountability (përgjegjshmëri) as necessary for lasting stability in the Western Balkans.
The declaration was unusual because Albania’s governing and opposition forces agreed on its essential wording despite their intense domestic political rivalry. Their common position created a moment of bipartisanship (bashkëpunim dypartiak) on an issue considered highly sensitive throughout Albanian-speaking communities. Political divisions were temporarily subordinated (nënshtruan) to what MPs described as a national interest concerning Kosovo’s recent history. This parliamentary unanimity (unanimitet) gave the declaration greater symbolic weight than a statement issued by the governing majority alone.
The joint declaration had also been preceded by an earlier parliamentary intervention in February 2026, before the trial judgment was issued. At that stage, Albania’s Parliament expressed concern over prosecutors’ demand for extremely long sentences (dënime) against the four defendants. The February declaration warned that the prosecution’s approach could create an unfair historical equation (barazim historik) between Kosovo’s liberation struggle and the crimes of the Milošević regime. September’s declaration therefore represented a continuation and significant escalation (përshkallëzim) of a position Parliament had already taken months before the verdict.
The September document also committed Albania to working directly with Kosovo’s institutions. Parliament proposed closer coordination (bashkërendim) with the Assembly of Kosovo regarding future institutional responses to the judgment. It additionally called on the Albanian and Kosovo governments to pursue coordinated diplomatic and legal initiatives (nisma) through legitimate channels. The stated objective was to seek a correction of what Albanian lawmakers considered an injustice (padrejtësi) while respecting the procedural stages still available in the case.
Kosovo itself experienced a powerful public reaction after the verdict. Thousands of people later participated in demonstrations (demonstrata) opposing the convictions and defending the historical reputation of the KLA. The verdict became a source of considerable political mobilisation (mobilizim) across Kosovo. Public anger also intensified political pressure (trysni) on Kosovo’s institutions to respond through parliamentary, diplomatic and legal channels.
Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti was among the political leaders who criticised the judgment immediately after it was announced. He characterised the lengthy sentences as an unacceptable injustice (padrejtësi) and said the verdict should be corrected through appeal. Kurti nevertheless referred to future legal review (rishikim) rather than claiming that the government itself could reverse the court’s conclusions. The reaction demonstrated the extraordinary political sensitivity (ndjeshmëri) surrounding proceedings against figures closely associated with Kosovo’s independence struggle.
The case has been particularly controversial because the Kosovo Specialist Chambers are formally part of Kosovo’s judicial system but operate in The Hague with international judges and prosecutors. The institution was created through Kosovo legislation and a constitutional amendment (ndryshim kushtetues) adopted in 2015 under substantial international pressure. Its physical location outside Kosovo was intended partly to provide greater protection against possible witness intimidation (frikësim) and political interference. This unusual institutional configuration (konfigurim) has contributed to persistent debate over the court’s legitimacy among sections of Kosovo society.
The Thaçi case itself was exceptionally extensive. Proceedings involved an enormous evidentiary record (dosje provash) accumulated during a trial that began in April 2023. The Specialist Chambers reported testimony from 134 witnesses during the proceedings before the evidentiary phase was formally closed (mbyllur) in December 2025. The length of deliberations reflected the complexity (ndërlikim) of assessing allegations covering multiple locations and events between 1998 and 1999.
The Trial Panel ultimately concluded that the four defendants significantly contributed to a common criminal purpose targeting people considered opponents of the KLA’s political or military objectives. Those targeted included perceived opponents (kundërshtarë), people associated with rival Albanian political or military structures and some members of ethnic minorities. The court identified a pattern involving detention and mistreatment (keqtrajtim) across several locations. Parliament’s rejection of the judgment therefore exists alongside detailed judicial findings (konstatime) that will now be examined through the appeals process.
Victims are another essential part of the proceedings and cannot be excluded from discussion of the political controversy. A total of 156 victims participated formally in the case through legal representation (përfaqësim) before the Specialist Chambers. The court process includes mechanisms dealing with potential reparations (dëmshpërblime) following convictions. Recognition of victims remains an important counterweight (kundërpeshë) to political debates centred primarily on the historical reputation of the defendants and the KLA.
The Albanian declaration therefore sits at the intersection of law, national memory and regional politics. Albania views Kosovo’s independence struggle as a fundamental part of modern Albanian historical consciousness (vetëdije historike). Judicial proceedings involving its wartime leaders inevitably carry powerful symbolism (simbolikë) beyond the individual defendants. The political challenge is to preserve that historical narrative (narrativë) while also acknowledging the principle that allegations of individual crimes must be capable of independent judicial examination.
For Albania’s Parliament, the appropriate next step is the full use of legal and diplomatic mechanisms rather than interference with the court itself. The declaration explicitly emphasised due process (proces i rregullt ligjor) and the exhaustion of available legal remedies. Appeals provide the defendants with an opportunity to challenge factual findings, legal reasoning (arsyetim) and the sentences imposed at first instance. Respecting that process will be central to maintaining the credibility (besueshmëri) of arguments that the verdict should ultimately be revised.
The unanimous September vote consequently represented much more than a response to four prison sentences. It demonstrated an unusually broad Albanian political alignment (përafrim) over Kosovo’s liberation history and the treatment of its former wartime leadership. At the same time, the judgment remains subject to an independent judicial appellate (apelues) process that Parliament cannot itself determine. The episode therefore illustrates the difficult intersection (ndërthurje) between historical memory, political solidarity and individual criminal accountability in the Western Balkans.
Key Albanian Vocabulary
zemërim indignation
deklaratë declaration
konsensus consensus
burgim imprisonment
njohje credit
apel appeal
ndalim arbitrar arbitrary detention
torturë torture
vrasje murder
shpallën të pafajshëm acquitted
incidente incidents
fushëveprim scope
çlirimtar liberating
shtypje repression
delegjitimojë delegitimise
solidaritet solidarity
pafajësi innocence
mjete juridike remedies
vlerësim assessment
i pavarur independent
procedura gjyqësore proceedings
përgjegjësi penale responsibility
sjellje conduct
nuancë nuance
barazim equivalence
instrumentalizim instrumentalisation
shtrembërim distortion
mizori atrocities
llogaridhënie accountability
njohje recognition
pajtim reconciliation
standarde të dyfishta double standards
përgjegjshmëri accountability
bashkëpunim dypartiak bipartisanship
nënshtruan subordinated
unanimitet unanimity
dënime sentences
barazim historik equation
përshkallëzim escalation
bashkërendim coordination
nisma initiatives
padrejtësi injustice
demonstrata demonstrations
mobilizim mobilisation
trysni pressure
rishikim review
ndjeshmëri sensitivity
ndryshim kushtetues amendment
frikësim intimidation
konfigurim configuration
dosje provash evidentiary record
mbyllur closed
ndërlikim complexity
kundërshtarë opponents
keqtrajtim mistreatment
konstatime findings
përfaqësim representation
dëmshpërblime reparations
kundërpeshë counterweight
vetëdije historike historical consciousness
simbolikë symbolism
narrativë narrative
proces i rregullt ligjor due process
arsyetim reasoning
besueshmëri credibility
përafrim alignment
apelues appellate
ndërthurje intersection
