On the occasion of the 17th anniversary of Kosovo’s Constitutional Court, experts from Kosovo, Albania and Europe examined international standards, the protection of human rights and the role of the Venice Commission. They stressed that technology can serve justice, but decision-making and judicial authority must remain human.
Kosovo’s Constitutional Court marked the anniversary of its establishment with an international conference, where the main issues addressed included the interpretation of the Constitution, international standards and the impact of artificial intelligence on justice.
Të lidhura
None found
The first panel, titled “International standards and constitutional interpretation,” brought together representatives of constitutional courts and legal experts. The discussion focused on the contribution of international standards to the protection of human rights, the independence of justice institutions and the new challenges facing judicial systems.
Irēna Kucina, president of the Constitutional Court of Latvia, said that Kosovo’s constitutional order had opened the way for international law standards. She singled out the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as important sources for interpreting the Constitution.
However, Kucina warned that international standards do not replace the Constitution and that international obligations should not serve to circumvent the constitutional order.
“International standards cannot replace the Constitution, and not every international concept can automatically be incorporated into domestic constitutional law. Thus, a state cannot use its Constitution as an easy reason to evade its international obligations,” Kucina declared.
Fiona Papajorgji, president of Albania’s Constitutional Court and of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts, also addressed the conference via Zoom. She emphasized the importance of constitutional courts in times of crisis, tension and social polarization.
According to Papajorgji, when societies and institutions face uncertainty, it becomes particularly important for courts to uphold the Constitution and protect fundamental rights.
“In a world marked by wars, tensions and civic mobilization, the Constitutional Court has a special role: to ensure that, even in times of uncertainty and polarization, power is exercised within the limits of the Constitution and fundamental rights remain protected,” Papajorgji stressed.
She added that constitutional courts share the task of keeping the Constitution a living instrument capable of responding to changes and challenges in democratic societies.
The use of artificial intelligence in justice was also discussed. Qerim Qerimi, a professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Pristina and a former member of the Venice Commission for Kosovo, said that technology could make the work of legal professionals easier, but could not take on tasks carried out with judicial authority.
He cited document classification, the organization of legal information and the detection of patterns in judicial practice as areas where artificial intelligence could be used. However, he said that assistance with legal analysis must be clearly distinguished from decision-making on how the law should be applied.
“There is a profound difference between using artificial intelligence to understand the law and using it to determine how the law should be applied. The former concerns information, while the latter concerns authority,” Qerimi declared.
Qerimi stressed that the authority of the judiciary is determined by constitutional norms and cannot be transferred to an algorithm, which risks interpreting or applying the law incorrectly. He also emphasized that legal certainty is important for making rules clear and predictable.
Another topic of the panel was the impact of the Venice Commission on the development and interpretation of constitutional law. Its vice-president, Renata Deskoska, said that the institution had become a point of reference for constitutional courts, parliaments, governments and other institutions in Europe and beyond.
Deskoska explained that the Venice Commission is neither a court nor a body that monitors the implementation of treaties. Nevertheless, its recommendations and positions have increased their influence in constitutional law, helping institutions interpret legal standards.
“Today, the Venice Commission is part of soft law and can have considerable interpretive influence. In modern terminology, we might even call the Venice Commission an influencer in constitutional law. However, this influence is not based on the power to impose positions, but on the ability to persuade,” Deskoska said.
The discussion highlighted the challenges facing constitutional courts in an increasingly complex environment where international obligations, the protection of fundamental rights and technological progress intersect. The common conclusion was that international standards and new technologies can assist justice, but the rule of law requires an implemented Constitution, legal certainty and the preservation of judicial authority.
