Thaçi, Veseli, Selimi and Krasniqi Convicted of War Crimes and Sentenced to a Combined 81 Years
The Kosovo Specialist Chambers finds four former senior KLA leaders guilty of arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture and murder, while acquitting them of crimes against humanity in a landmark but highly contested judgment.
The Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague delivered one of the most consequential judgments concerning the 1998–1999 Kosovo war on September 16, 2026. Former Kosovo President Hashim Thaçi and former senior KLA figures Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi were found guilty of four categories of war crimes (krime lufte). Together, the four men received a combined sentence (dënim) of 81 years in prison. The judgment remains subject to appeal (apel) and therefore does not yet represent the final stage of the proceedings.
Thaçi and Krasniqi each received 25 years in prison, while Veseli was sentenced to 18 years and Selimi to 13 years. All four received credit (njohje) for the time they had already spent in detention since being transferred to The Hague in November 2020. The individual terms reflected the Trial Panel’s assessment of their respective culpability (fajësi) and roles in the crimes established at trial. The sentences created an unprecedented judicial reckoning (llogaridhënie gjyqësore) for figures who had occupied some of the highest political positions in post-war Kosovo.
The judges found the four defendants criminally responsible for the unlawful or arbitrary arrest and detention of at least 385 people. The judgment established responsibility for arbitrary detention (ndalim arbitrar) affecting people whom KLA structures regarded as political or military opponents. At least 303 people were subjected to torture (torturë) according to the Trial Panel’s findings. The court additionally established the murder (vrasje) of at least 96 people.
Cruel treatment represented a separate category of criminal responsibility in the judgment. At least 49 people were found to have suffered cruel treatment (trajtim mizor) while in KLA-controlled detention locations. The crimes affected civilians and other people considered non-combatants (joluftëtarë) during the conflict. These findings gave the judgment considerable gravity (peshë juridike) because the court concluded that the abuses occurred across multiple locations rather than as one isolated episode.
The Trial Panel found that the defendants significantly contributed to a common criminal purpose directed against perceived opponents of the KLA’s political and military objectives. Those targeted included political opponents (kundërshtarë politikë) associated with other Kosovo Albanian organisations, including the LDK and FARK. The targeted group also included people accused of collaboration (bashkëpunim) with Serbian or Yugoslav authorities. Certain members of ethnic minorities (pakica) including Roma and Serbs were also among those affected.
The court’s reasoning was based on the concept of a joint criminal enterprise rather than the simple fact that the defendants occupied senior positions within the KLA. Judges concluded that the four men made a significant contribution (kontribut i rëndësishëm) to the common criminal purpose established by the evidence. Criminal responsibility therefore depended on their individual participation (pjesëmarrje) and contribution rather than collective membership in the organisation. This distinction was essential to the court’s legal reasoning (arsyetim juridik) because the trial was formally concerned with individual defendants rather than the legitimacy of the KLA as a whole.
The judgment did not accept all the charges originally brought by the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. All four men were acquitted (shpallën të pafajshëm) of six counts of crimes against humanity. Prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a sufficiently widespread or systematic attack (sulm sistematik) directed against a civilian population. This partial acquittal considerably narrowed the scope (fushëveprim) of the final convictions compared with the original indictment.
The defendants were also acquitted in relation to several specific incidents that prosecutors had classified as war crimes. This demonstrates that the Trial Panel conducted an incident-by-incident assessment (vlerësim) rather than simply accepting the prosecution case in its entirety. The prosecution carried the burden of proof (barra e provës) for each allegation and had to establish criminal responsibility beyond reasonable doubt. Where that standard was not met, the judges entered findings of not guilty (të pafajshëm).
The case concerned events occurring between March 1998 and September 1999 in Kosovo and at locations in Kukës and Cahan in northern Albania. The original indictment (aktakuzë) included allegations covering detention facilities and other sites associated with KLA structures. Prosecutors presented extensive documentary evidence (prova dokumentare) and testimony relating to events across numerous municipalities. The geographical breadth (shtrirje) of the case contributed substantially to its length and complexity.
The trial itself began on April 3, 2023, nearly two and a half years after the four defendants were transferred to The Hague. Prosecutors eventually called 125 witnesses (dëshmitarë) to testify live before the court. Victims’ Counsel and the defence called additional witnesses, bringing the total number who testified during the trial to 134 and creating an enormous evidentiary record (dosje provash). The evidentiary phase formally closed (u mbyll) on December 18, 2025.
The Specialist Prosecutor’s Office also introduced thousands of exhibits during the proceedings. Approximately 3,000 prosecution exhibits (materiale provuese) in multiple languages were admitted into evidence. Such a large body of material required extensive deliberation (shqyrtim i thelluar) by the Trial Panel before judgment could be pronounced. The complexity of the record was one reason the court extended the period for judicial assessment (vlerësim gjyqësor) before announcing the verdict.
The defence consistently rejected the prosecution’s interpretation of the defendants’ wartime roles. Thaçi and the other defendants maintained their innocence (pafajësi) and challenged the allegation that they participated in a common criminal plan. Defence lawyers questioned the reliability (besueshmëri) of parts of the evidence and disputed the attribution of responsibility to senior KLA leaders. Their arguments will continue to be relevant during the appellate proceedings (procedura e apelit) following the first-instance judgment.
The four defendants had already spent almost six years in detention by the time sentences were imposed. The court therefore ordered that their previous detention (paraburgim) be deducted from the sentences. This principle prevents an accused person from serving the same period of custody (mbajtje në paraburgim) twice when calculating the final prison term. The calculation will remain important during any eventual enforcement (ekzekutim) of the sentences if the convictions survive appeal.
The Kosovo Specialist Chambers are unusual because they are part of Kosovo’s judicial system but operate from The Hague and are staffed internationally. Kosovo created the court in 2015 through a constitutional and legislative framework (kuadër) developed under strong international pressure. Its location outside Kosovo was intended partly to protect witnesses and reduce the risk of intimidation (frikësim) or political interference. This unusual institutional configuration (konfigurim institucional) has contributed to intense controversy over the court’s role and legitimacy within Kosovo.
The Specialist Prosecutor strongly emphasised after the verdict that the proceedings were not a prosecution of the KLA itself. The case, prosecutors argued, concerned individual accountability (llogaridhënie) for grave crimes rather than Kosovo’s war for independence. The prosecution maintained that specific individuals had exploited wartime circumstances (rrethana) to commit crimes against people who were entitled to protection. This distinction is central to the court’s institutional narrative (narrativë) and to the debate surrounding the legitimacy of its judgments.
The verdict nevertheless triggered intense anger in Kosovo, where the four defendants remain closely associated with the struggle for independence from Serbia. Thousands later participated in protests (protesta) rejecting the judgment and defending the historical reputation of the KLA. Many demonstrators argued that the convictions risked creating a distorted equivalence (barazim) between the KLA and Serbian forces responsible for widespread violence during the conflict. The reaction demonstrated the enormous political sensitivity (ndjeshmëri politike) surrounding any judicial assessment of Kosovo’s wartime leadership.
Kosovo’s political leaders also criticised the ruling while recognising that any reversal must occur through legal procedures. Prime Minister Albin Kurti publicly questioned the fairness (drejtësi) of the judgment and expressed hope that it would be corrected during review. Albanian and Kosovo politicians emphasised the right to pursue legal remedies (mjete juridike) rather than claiming that governments could directly overturn the verdict. The political reaction therefore created continuing tension between judicial independence (pavarësi) and strong national opposition to the court’s conclusions.
The judgment is not final, and appellate proceedings are already developing. Following defence requests, a Court of Appeals panel (trup gjykues) composed of three judges was assigned on September 22 to deal with matters connected with notices of appeal. The defence teams are seeking further review (rishikim) of the Trial Panel’s findings and sentences. The appellate stage can examine alleged errors of law, fact or procedure before the judgment gains full finality (formë të prerë).
Victims remain another major component of the proceedings. A total of 156 victims participated formally in the case through legal representation (përfaqësim juridik) before the Specialist Chambers. Following the guilty verdicts, the Trial Panel decided to conduct separate reparation proceedings (procedura dëmshpërblimi) rather than immediately directing victims toward civil litigation in Kosovo. This stage may eventually result in a formal reparation order (urdhër dëmshpërblimi) addressing harm recognised through the criminal judgment.
The participation of victims is important because political discussion often concentrates almost entirely on the defendants and the historical status of the KLA. Criminal proceedings also concern the suffering (vuajtje) of people who were detained, mistreated, tortured or killed. Recognising those victims provides an important counterweight (kundërpeshë) to narratives focused exclusively on national liberation and political symbolism. Their inclusion reinforces the broader principle that individual victimhood (status viktime) remains relevant regardless of the wider political context in which crimes occurred.
The court’s findings also require careful distinction between collective history and individual criminal responsibility. Kosovo’s armed struggle against Serbian rule forms a central part of the country’s national memory (kujtesë kombëtare) and independence narrative. A conviction of individual KLA leaders does not legally constitute a condemnation (dënim moral) of every fighter or of the political objective of independence. The court repeatedly emphasised this distinction (dallim) because criminal law evaluates specific conduct rather than assigning collective guilt to an entire movement.
The September judgment therefore represents a landmark moment in Kosovo’s difficult effort to address crimes committed during its war while preserving an intensely contested historical narrative. The convictions established serious individual criminal responsibility (përgjegjësi penale) at first instance for arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture and murder. The simultaneous acquittals on crimes against humanity demonstrate the court’s more limited findings (konstatime) compared with the prosecution’s original case. The ultimate historical and legal significance of the verdict will depend on the outcome of the appeals process (procesi i apelit) and the eventual final judgment.
Key Albanian Vocabulary
krime lufte war crimes
dënim sentence
apel appeal
njohje credit
fajësi culpability
llogaridhënie gjyqësore judicial reckoning
ndalim arbitrar arbitrary detention
torturë torture
vrasje murder
trajtim mizor cruel treatment
joluftëtarë non-combatants
peshë juridike gravity
kundërshtarë politikë political opponents
bashkëpunim collaboration
pakica minorities
kontribut i rëndësishëm significant contribution
pjesëmarrje participation
arsyetim juridik legal reasoning
shpallën të pafajshëm acquitted
sulm sistematik systematic attack
fushëveprim scope
vlerësim assessment
barra e provës burden of proof
të pafajshëm not guilty
aktakuzë indictment
prova dokumentare documentary evidence
shtrirje breadth
dëshmitarë witnesses
dosje provash evidentiary record
u mbyll closed
materiale provuese exhibits
shqyrtim i thelluar deliberation
vlerësim gjyqësor judicial assessment
pafajësi innocence
besueshmëri reliability
procedura e apelit appellate proceedings
paraburgim detention
mbajtje në paraburgim custody
ekzekutim enforcement
kuadër framework
frikësim intimidation
konfigurim institucional configuration
llogaridhënie accountability
rrethana circumstances
narrativë narrative
protesta protests
barazim equivalence
ndjeshmëri politike political sensitivity
drejtësi fairness
mjete juridike legal remedies
pavarësi independence
trup gjykues panel
rishikim review
formë të prerë finality
përfaqësim juridik representation
procedura dëmshpërblimi reparation proceedings
urdhër dëmshpërblimi reparation order
vuajtje suffering
kundërpeshë counterweight
status viktime victimhood
kujtesë kombëtare memory
dënim moral condemnation
dallim distinction
përgjegjësi penale criminal responsibility
konstatime findings
procesi i apelit appeals process
