The Democratic Party of Kosovo has introduced a draft law to amend the Law on the Specialist Chambers, proposing new rules for imposing and enforcing sentences.
Të lidhura
None found
Under the initiative, the maximum sentence the Specialist Chambers could impose would be 15 years in prison.
The draft law stipulates that sentences would be served in Kosovo and that convicted individuals could benefit from a presidential pardon.
The amendments would also affect the relationship between sentence enforcement and Kosovo’s institutions, as well as the overall functioning of the Specialist Chambers.
Burjani: EU should clarify the future of the Specialist Chambers if the amendments are passed
Legal expert Blerim Burjani said the PDK proposals aim to narrow the powers and mandate of the Specialist Chambers, including by introducing the possibility of a presidential pardon.
He told “Bota sot” that the amendments represent a different political approach from the current law and that it remains unclear whether the European Union will accept them.
“The proposed amendments and additions have different objectives from those of the law currently in force. They aim to reduce the powers and the basic mandate for which the Specialist Chambers were established, while also providing for the possibility of a presidential pardon. This is a political desire, but it remains to be seen what the EU’s position will be and whether the chambers will continue working as they have until now or accept the amendments,” Burjani said.
He said the consequences could be political for Kosovo, although the EU has so far made no substantive response clarifying what impact the amendments might have.
“At the moment, we are in an observation phase, while the Assembly of Kosovo is considering and may approve the amendments. It is not known whether the EU, as a co-participant in this process, will accept them. For this reason, we must wait to see where it stands. Unilateral amendments are a matter for Kosovo and, in that sense, may be acceptable only to Kosovo,” he said.
Burjani noted that the EU has so far supported only the first-instance judgment and has not commented on Kosovo’s initiative.
“So far, the EU has supported the first-instance judgment, but it has not responded on other issues, including the amendments Kosovo is seeking. If the Assembly approves them, the EU must explain what will happen next and how the Specialist Chambers will function,” the legal expert said.
He added that it is not known whether the amendments would apply retroactively, since the EU is involved in the Specialist Chambers both normatively and financially.
Sadiku: 15-year limit must be aligned with the constitutional and legal basis
Political analyst Arbnor Sadiku said the Assembly has the authority to amend the law, but any cap on the maximum sentence must comply with the entire constitutional and legal framework under which the Specialist Chambers operate.
He questioned whether such an amendment could affect proceedings and decisions that the Specialist Chambers have already issued.
“In principle, the Assembly can amend the Law on the Specialist Chambers, but setting a maximum of 15 years must be consistent with the court’s entire constitutional and legal framework. The Specialist Chambers have stated that Law 05/L-053 is the binding basis for sentencing. For this reason, it is not enough simply to stipulate in law that the maximum sentence is 15 years; it must be assessed whether this amendment could affect the Specialist Chambers’ existing proceedings and decisions,” Sadiku said.
He stressed that the Assembly’s legislative authority is not unlimited, as it is linked to Article 162 of the Constitution and the Exchange of Letters, which form part of the legal basis of the Specialist Chambers.
“Law 05/L-053 was adopted precisely on the basis of the constitutional amendment that created Article 162. For this reason, an intervention that significantly affects the Specialist Chambers’ mandate, powers or functioning could face constitutional problems. It cannot automatically be considered in force simply because it has been passed by the Assembly. The PDK draft law also stipulates that the matter be reviewed by the Specialist Chamber of the Constitutional Court,” he stressed.
On practical implementation, Sadiku said passing the draft law would not in itself reduce sentences or change ongoing judicial proceedings, which continue through the legal remedies provided for by the Specialist Chambers’ system.
“The main problem is practical. The four former KLA leaders were sentenced at first instance to 25 years in prison for Thaçi and Krasniqi, 18 years for Veseli and 13 years for Selimi. These decisions are part of a judicial process that continues through legal remedies and cannot be automatically changed by a new law passed by the Assembly,” the analyst said.
Sadiku explained that even the principle of lex mitior, which means applying the more favorable law, would not automatically turn every sentence exceeding 15 years into a 15-year sentence.
“The Mustafa case is particularly significant because the Specialist Chambers’ own system has specifically examined the law applicable to sentencing and the legal remedies available within that system,” he said.
According to Sadiku, the PDK can advance the initiative and the Assembly can approve it, but that would not automatically guarantee a reduction in sentences imposed by the Specialist Chambers or a change to proceedings that are still underway.
“This shows the difference between a political decision that responds to electoral pressure and demands from associations formed after the war, and a legal mechanism that can actually have consequences for the Specialist Chambers’ decisions. The PDK initiative was introduced immediately after the September 16 judgment, at a time when associations formed after the war had also called for institutional action,” Sadiku concluded in comments to “Bota sot”.
