Former Kosovo president Hashim Thaçi sentenced to 25 years for war crimes

For families who lost people during Kosovo’s war, the events of the late 1990s are still part of daily life. A judgment delivered in The Hague has brought those years back into the centre of public debate.

On September 16, the Kosovo Specialist Chambers sentenced former Kosovo president Hashim Thaçi to 25 years in prison for war crimes. Three other former leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army, known as the KLA, were also convicted.

The court’s published account lists the crimes as arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture and murder. It says the four defendants were criminally responsible for the unlawful killing of 96 people.

What the judges decided

Jakup Krasniqi also received a 25-year sentence. Kadri Veseli was sentenced to 18 years and Rexhep Selimi to 13 years. The court said time already spent in detention would count towards the sentences.

The ruling did not find the defendants guilty on every charge. They were acquitted of crimes against humanity because prosecutors had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that there had been a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. They were also acquitted over some specific alleged war-crime incidents.

Both parts belong in the account of the judgment: the convictions and the acquittals. Leaving either out would give readers an incomplete picture of what the judges actually decided.

According to the Associated Press, Thaçi resigned as president nearly six years ago to face the charges. Both the defendants and prosecutors can appeal. Prosecutors had sought a tougher sentence.

A verdict with deep political impact

The case concerns conduct during the 1998–99 conflict, when the KLA fought Serbian forces. Kosovo later declared independence in 2008. Many people in Kosovo regard the former commanders as figures central to that struggle, which helps explain the strength of the reaction.

RFE/RL reported protests following the judgment and strong criticism from Kosovo’s political leaders. Thaçi’s lawyer, Richard-Pierre Prosper, rejected the decision and said the defence would appeal.

The report also records a crucial point made by the presiding judge: the trial concerned the defendants’ own actions. It was not a judgment on the legitimacy of Kosovo’s independence struggle, or an exercise in comparing responsibility between opposing sides.

That distinction matters when a court ruling quickly becomes a political argument. Individual criminal responsibility and a country’s wider history are connected, but they are not interchangeable questions.

The judgment is a major development, while appeals could still change the legal outcome. For readers following the next stage, the key will be what the defence challenges, how prosecutors respond and what the appeals judges decide. For victims and their families, the consequences reach far beyond that legal timetable.