How One Legal Doctrine Could Decide Hashim Thaçi's Political Legacy

The prosecution's final brief seeks to separate liberation from liability, arguing Kosovo's independence struggle and alleged crimes by senior leaders are legally distinct questions entirely.

The courtroom in The Hague does not begin its work by asking whether Kosovo deserved to be free.

It begins with a far narrower question.

Did Hashim Thaçi, together with Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi, bear individual criminal responsibility for crimes allegedly committed against specific victims between March 1998 and September 1999?

Everything else follows from that question.

The distinction is not rhetorical. It is the foundation upon which the entire prosecution has been constructed. In its Final Trial Brief¹, submitted after years of witness testimony, documentary evidence and forensic examination, the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office does not argue that the Kosovo Liberation Army was, in itself, a criminal organisation. Nor does it contend that Kosovo’s aspiration for independence was unlawful. Instead, it argues that a group of senior political and military leaders allegedly used parts of the KLA’s organisational structure to pursue an additional objective beyond fighting Serbian forces.

According to the prosecution, that alleged objective evolved into what international criminal law describes as a Joint Criminal Enterprise, commonly referred to simply as a JCE.

Few legal concepts have generated more controversy in international criminal justice.

Contrary to frequent public misunderstanding, a Joint Criminal Enterprise is not itself a criminal offence. It is a mode of liability. It provides prosecutors with a legal framework through which responsibility may be attributed to individuals who allegedly participated in a common criminal purpose, even where they did not personally commit every underlying offence.

That distinction is crucial.

The prosecution is not required to prove that Hashim Thaçi personally committed every murder, every unlawful detention or every act of torture alleged in the indictment. Rather, it seeks to prove that he knowingly participated in a common criminal plan whose implementation involved those crimes, made a significant contribution to that plan and shared responsibility for its execution under the applicable principles of international criminal law.

Everything in the prosecution brief is organised around establishing those legal elements.

The document itself reflects that architecture.

Its opening substantive chapter does not begin with descriptions of detention facilities or individual victims. Instead, it first attempts to establish the existence of what prosecutors describe as a common criminal purpose. Only after constructing that alleged organisational framework does it move to individual responsibility, specific incidents, contextual legal requirements and finally sentencing.

That sequence is deliberate.

If the alleged common purpose cannot be established, much of the prosecution’s broader theory becomes substantially weaker. Consequently, hundreds of pages are devoted not merely to recounting individual crimes but to demonstrating how disparate acts across Kosovo allegedly formed part of a single overarching criminal design.

According to the prosecution, that common purpose was not simply to resist Serbian military and police forces.

The brief argues that certain senior KLA leaders sought “to gain and exercise control over all of Kosovo” through methods that allegedly included unlawfully intimidating, mistreating, committing violence against and removing those regarded as opponents. Those alleged opponents, according to prosecutors, included individuals suspected of collaborating with Serbian authorities, persons viewed as insufficiently supportive of the KLA, members of the Democratic League of Kosovo, commonly known as the LDK, and civilians belonging to Serb, Roma and other minority communities.

That paragraph, occupying only a few lines within the prosecution brief, may ultimately prove to be among the most consequential in the entire trial.

It represents the prosecution’s attempt to distinguish between the KLA’s publicly declared objective of liberating Kosovo and what prosecutors allege became the private objectives of particular leaders within its senior command.

The prosecution expressly acknowledges that the KLA sought Kosovo’s liberation. Yet it argues that the ambitions of the accused allegedly extended further, beyond military resistance against Serbian rule and towards consolidating political authority through the violent suppression of perceived rivals.

This is perhaps the most legally significant distinction in the case.

If prosecutors were arguing that fighting Serbian forces constituted criminal conduct, the case would almost certainly collapse under established principles of international humanitarian law. Armed resistance, by itself, is not prohibited. International law regulates how wars are fought, not simply why they are fought.

Instead, prosecutors argue that crimes were allegedly committed against people who, irrespective of their political beliefs or ethnicity, should have remained protected under the laws governing armed conflict.

Those alleged crimes form the core of the indictment.

They include persecution, unlawful imprisonment, arbitrary arrest and detention, cruel treatment, torture, enforced disappearance and murder. Each charge relates not to battlefield engagements between opposing armed forces but to civilians or persons whom prosecutors contend were no longer lawfully subject to military violence.

The prosecution therefore spends considerable effort defining a single word.

Opponents.

Within ordinary political debate, an opponent may simply be someone who disagrees.

Within this prosecution, however, the term carries a highly specific legal meaning.

According to the brief, “Opponents” encompasses persons alleged to have been targeted because they were believed to collaborate with Serbian institutions, were associated with rival Albanian political organisations, particularly the LDK, opposed the aims or methods of the KLA leadership, or belonged to certain ethnic communities, including Serbs and Roma.

Whether that characterisation accurately reflects events is precisely what the Trial Panel must determine.

The defence disputes the prosecution’s interpretation.

Throughout the proceedings, lawyers representing Hashim Thaçi have consistently rejected the allegation that any common criminal purpose existed. They argue that the prosecution selectively interprets political statements, organisational structures and wartime decision-making while ignoring the realities of an armed conflict against a vastly superior military opponent. They further contend that prosecutors improperly attribute responsibility for crimes allegedly committed by local individuals across different operational zones without establishing the necessary legal connection to Mr Thaçi himself.

That disagreement lies at the centre of virtually every evidentiary dispute heard during the trial.

The prosecution, recognising the importance of proving organisational coherence, devotes substantial sections of its brief to reconstructing the internal structure of the KLA.

General Staff meetings.

Political directorates.

Operational zones.

Military police.

Intelligence.

Logistics.

Finance.

Communications.

Appointments.

Promotions.

Reporting structures.

The creation of the Provisional Government of Kosovo.

Relationships between commanders operating in different regions.

None of this appears accidentally within the document. Prosecutors seek to demonstrate that these were not isolated wartime formations but interconnected institutions through which authority allegedly flowed from senior leadership to subordinate structures responsible for crimes charged in the indictment.

For Hashim Thaçi specifically, prosecutors identify several categories through which they allege he made what international criminal law terms a “significant contribution” to the alleged Joint Criminal Enterprise.

These include the formulation and implementation of plans, policies and structures, participation in or encouragement of crimes, failure to prevent or punish criminal conduct, dissemination of information designed to promote the alleged common purpose, providing false or misleading information to international actors, approving appointments and promotions, facilitating political, military and logistical support, and coordinating activities among those prosecutors identify as participants in the alleged enterprise.

Listing those allegations, however, should not be mistaken for establishing them.

The prosecution’s brief represents precisely what its title declares.

It is the prosecution’s final legal argument.

It is not a judicial finding.

The Trial Panel has not adopted these allegations as fact. Nor has it concluded that the prosecution has proved them beyond reasonable doubt. The judges must still determine whether each legal element has been established on the basis of admissible evidence tested through years of adversarial proceedings.

That distinction cannot be overstated.

Too often, political debate surrounding the Kosovo Specialist Chambers treats the indictment as though it were already a conviction or dismisses it entirely as though no evidence exists. Neither position reflects how criminal justice functions.

An indictment is an accusation.

A prosecution brief is an argument.

A judgment is something else entirely.

The prosecution itself appears conscious of this distinction.

Its brief repeatedly seeks to bridge the gap between allegation and proof by directing judges towards witness testimony, documentary evidence, intercepted communications, seized records, regulations, political declarations, military orders and contemporaneous KLA documents. It argues that no single category of evidence stands alone. Rather, prosecutors contend that the convergence of multiple independent sources establishes the alleged common criminal purpose beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether that convergence withstands judicial scrutiny remains uncertain.

International criminal trials are rarely decided by dramatic revelations. More often, they turn upon meticulous examination of individual documents, the credibility of witnesses, competing interpretations of organisational structures and the extent to which circumstantial evidence can support conclusions about intent and knowledge.

Those questions become even more difficult in conflicts such as Kosovo’s, where military necessity, political leadership and wartime chaos frequently overlap.

No commander exercises perfect control.

No conflict unfolds according to administrative order.

The law nevertheless requires judges to determine where command responsibility begins, where individual liability attaches and whether criminal conduct resulted from isolated acts by subordinates or from policies knowingly encouraged, tolerated or directed by those above them.

That is why the prosecution spends so much time attempting to reconstruct not merely crimes, but decision-making itself.

Its argument depends upon persuading the judges that what occurred across dozens of locations was not a series of disconnected incidents but the implementation of an identifiable common purpose shared by identifiable individuals.

Whether that proposition survives judicial examination will determine not only the fate of Hashim Thaçi and his co-accused. It will also shape how history understands one of the most politically sensitive chapters of Kosovo’s liberation struggle.

In the next part, the focus narrows further. The courtroom moves beyond legal theory and organisational charts to the individual at the centre of the proceedings. There, the question ceases to be what the prosecution alleges about the KLA’s leadership collectively and becomes something far more precise: what, exactly, does the evidence seek to prove about Hashim Thaçi himself?

---

---

1. Public Redacted Version of ‘Corrected Version of “Prosecution Final Trial Brief” — Kosovo Specialist Chambers in the Hague