On 23 October 2026, the Specialist Chamber of the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment on the referral made by Pjetër Shala, declaring part of his complaints inadmissible, and finding that there had been no violation of the Kosovo Constitution or the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as to the remainder.
Mr. Shala had alleged violations of his individual rights and freedoms in connection with the criminal proceedings against him before the Kosovo Specialist Chambers. In particular, Mr. Shala complained that the passage of time between the crimes charged and his trial had undermined the fairness of the criminal proceedings. The Constitutional Chamber found specific parts of the complaint inadmissible for failure to exhaust the available legal remedies. For the rest, it held that Mr Shala had benefitted from adversarial proceedings in this connection and that the proceedings, as a whole, had been fair and not arbitrary. It thus declared the complaint inadmissible.
Mr. Shala also complained that the admission and use at trial of prior statements given by him to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Belgian Federal Judicial Police, obtained when he was questioned as a suspect without legal assistance, had violated his right to a fair trial. The Constitutional Chamber considered certain aspects of the complaint inadmissible for failure to exhaust legal remedies. Regarding the remainder, applying the general test of fairness in the administration of evidence, it found that Mr Shala was afforded ample opportunities to challenge the statements and oppose their use, and that his objections had been adequately dealt with by the criminal chambers. It also noted that one of the statements was not relied on at trial, while the others had not been decisive for Mr Shala’s conviction. Therefore, it declared the complaint inadmissible.
Mr. Shala further complained that his conviction had violated the principle of legality, alleging that joint criminal enterprise as a mode of liability and the war crime of arbitrary detention in a non-international armed conflict were not prescribed by law or sufficiently accessible and foreseeable to him at the material time. The Constitutional Chamber found that basic-form joint criminal enterprise was an established mode of liability under customary international law tempore criminis, and that the war crime of arbitrary detention in a non-international armed conflict equally had a sufficiently clear basis in customary international law. In this regard, it further held that the relevant legal sources were accessible well before the commission of the crimes, and that it had been foreseeable to Mr Shala that he could incur criminal liability on these bases. For these reasons, it found no violation of the principle of legality.
Likewise, Mr. Shala complained that the charges against him did not sufficiently identify the members of the joint criminal enterprise or specify the number and identity of the victims, thereby depriving him of effective notice of the charges and a genuine opportunity to respond to them and organise his defence. The Constitutional Chamber found that the charges provided sufficient information to enable Mr. Shala to understand the accusations and prepare his defence. It noted that the charges had put him on notice that the joint criminal enterprise included additional members beyond those expressly named, and that Mr. Shala had received further details about the number and identity of the victims well before trial. Thus, it declared the complaint inadmissible.
Lastly, Mr. Shala complained that, in applying the sentencing framework under Law No. 05/L-053 on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, rather than the applicable Kosovo laws at the time, the criminal chambers violated the principle of legality. He likewise complained that his sentence breached the principle of equality before the law and was disproportionate compared with sentences imposed in similar cases. The Constitutional Chamber declared the latter complaint inadmissible for failure to exhaust legal remedies. As to the former, it recalled that the Specialist Chambers function in accordance with their own legal framework within the justice system of Kosovo, and that the only binding law applicable to sentencing before the Specialist Chambers is Law No. 05/L-053 on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, which does not require the criminal chambers to apply other Kosovo laws when determining sentences for international crimes, but only to take them into account. It accordingly declared the complaint inadmissible.
The judgment can be found on the KSC website.