The Specialist Court for Kosovo: continuity or departure from the hybrid courts model?

Shkёlzen Selimi

doi:10.7336/academicus.2016.13.02

Authors

Shkёlzen Selimi Justices of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Albania

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7336/academicus.2016.13.02

Abstract

The issue of whether to establish Specialist Chambers within the Kosovo justice system for alleged war crimes committed in Kosovo has been, arguably, one of the most heated debates not only from a political and social point of view, but also from a legal one. While the required amendments in the Constitution and several laws of Kosovo necessary to establish the Specialist Chambers in furtherance of the agreement dated 14 April 2014 between the Republic of Kosovo and the European Union on the Mission of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (“EULEX”) will certainly create heated debates in the political level, one may argue that the legal issues that are expected to be encountered when the Specialist Chambers will be operational, may be even more pressing. This is in consideration of the peculiar nature of the Specialist Chambers, which are meant to have their basis within the laws of Kosovo, but at the same time, be independent from them and from control of Kosovo authorities. The purpose of this article is to delineate the possible legal issues that might confront the Specialist Chambers of Kosovo. Its main argument is that, while the Specialist Chambers seem to follow the experience of other hybrid internationalised courts, it still differs from them in some aspects. The challenges that the new Specialist Chambers may need to tackle deal with its jurisdiction and position within the Kosovo Judicial system, and its legitimacy and legal basis.

Keywords:

Kosovo Specialist Chambers, international criminal law, jurisdiction, hybrid tribunals, Marty Report

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Carla del Ponte, La Caccia: Io e i Criminali di Guerra, Feltrinelli, (2008).
Mirjan R. Damaska, ‘What is the Point of International Criminal Justice?’, 83 Chicago Kent Law Review, (2008).
Sonja Boelaert-Suominen, ‘The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Kosovo conflict’, 837 International Review of the Red Cross (2000).
Wolfgang Schomburg, ‘The Role of International Criminal Tribunals in Promoting Respect for Fair Trial Rights’, 8 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 2009.
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Case no IT-94-1-A, 15.07.1999.
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-A, 2.10.1995.
ICTY, Trial Chamber II, Prosecutor v. Vlastimir Dordevic, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, 23.02.2011.
STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, Case No. STL-11-01/PT/AC/AR90.1, “Decision on the Defence Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s “Decision On The Defence Challenges To The Jurisdiction And Legality Of The Tribunal”, 24 October 2012.
STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, Case No. STL-11-01/PT/TC, “Decision On The Defence Challenges To The Jurisdiction And Legality Of The Tribunal” 27 July 2012.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Inhuman treatment of people and illicit trafficking in human organs in Kosovo, AS/Jur (2010) 46.
Press Statement, ICTY, 16 April 2008.
Security Council, S/RES/1757 (2007).
Statement of the Chief Prosecutor of the Special Investigative Task Force 29 July 2014.
The Guardian, ‘Genocide tribunal ‘ignoring Tutsi crimes’, 13 January 2005.