Live update

As ordered by the Pre-Trial Judge two days ago, the SPO has today, 16 April, submitted the amended confirmed indictment in the case against Thaçi, Smakaj, Kilaj, Fazliu and Kuçi. The submission specifies that the amendments are in the paragraphs 43 and 46 in relation to counts 1 to 3.

On 16 April 2025, all Defence teams notified the Trial Panel of their intention to file motions to dismiss some or all of the charges in the indictment, in accordance with Rule 130 of the Rules. Additionally, the Defence teams indicated that they would update the Panel on whether they intend to present their cases following the ruling on the Rule 130 motions.

On 15 April 2025, the SPO filed a notice announcing that it closed its case against Thaçi et al. The SPO’s Press Release, issued this morning, can be seen here.

On 27 March 2025, Single Judge Marjorie Masselot denied a request for temporary release of Haxhi Shala to Kosovo. Judge Masselot concluded that Shala has not demonstrated the existence of exceptional and compelling humanitarian grounds justifying his temporary release. The public redacted version of this decision, filed on 15 April, is available here.

Prior to this, Shala was granted a custodial visit in October of last year, as we informed about here.

The legal framework of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers allows detained persons to make requests for a custodial visit to Kosovo when there are compelling humanitarian grounds. The relevant judges decide on any such requests, based on the information provided at the time a request is made.

Following the Court of Appeal’s decision we informed about earlier this month, Pre-Trial Judge Masselot yesterday, 14 April 2025, amended her previous decision confirming the indictment in this case. Judge Masselot confirmed the additional mode of liability for Hashim Thaçi under Article 32(3) of the Kosovo Criminal Code to the existing charges outlined in counts 1, 2, and 3 of the confirmed indictment and ordered the SPO to submit a new amended confirmed indictment by 16 April 2025 at 12:00.

According to Judge Masselot, a further initial appearance for Thaçi is not necessary since no new charges are added, only an additional mode of liability for the existing offense. However, the accused’s position on this should be formally recorded, she said and invited him to enter his plea regarding the newly confirmed additional form of incitement. If he chooses to do so, he must submit it in writing by 24 April at 16:00. If he decides not to exercise this right, the Pre-Trial Judge will enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf, in accordance with Rule 92(2)(f) of the Rules.

If Thaçi wishes to be informed in open court about the new mode of liability, he may submit a request for it until 24 April at 16:00.

Furthermore, Judge Masselot set the date for submitting preliminary motions by the accused in this case, if any, to 8 May 2025.

Here is the full decision.

On 11 April 2025, the Court of Appeals Chamber issued its decision dismissing the appeal filed by the Veseli ‘s and Krasniqi’s Defence. The appeal challenged a Trial Panel’s oral order from 5 December 2024, which had rejected an objection concerning the use of a statement from a non-testifying witness during the Panel’s questioning of witness Sokol Bashota.

The Appeals Panel reaffirmed the broad discretion afforded to the Trial Panel under the Rules, including the right to question witnesses on matters not raised by the parties. Among its conclusions, the Appeals Panel determined that, during its questioning, the Trial Panel was assessing the credibility or seeking clarification from a witness and that no actual prejudice had been demonstrated.

This is another decision concerning the Defence's objections about the Panel's witness questioning. We mentioned the prior two decisions in our last update.

On 19 March 2025, the Trial Panel in the case against Thaҫi et al. denied the sixth request for temporary release on compassionate grounds of Hashim Thaҫi in order to attend his father’s funeral. In view of the Panel, a custodial visit during the funeral and public commemoration events would have posed significant security concerns. The Panel found that these risks could be appropriately mitigated if the visit took place after the funeral.  The public redacted version of this decision, filed on 7 April, is available here.

Prior to and after this decision, the same panel granted two custodial visits in March, while it rejected two visits in January and February of this year. The links to our posts about these decisions are here: 3^rd request; 4^th request; 5^th request; 7^th request.

The legal framework of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers allows detained persons to make requests for a custodial visit to Kosovo when there are compelling humanitarian grounds. The relevant judges decide on any such requests, based on the information provided at the time a request is made.

Here is the transcript of today's KSC Weekly Press Briefing.

Another KSC weekly press briefing will take place on Thursday, 10 April, at 14:30. During this briefing, the KSC Spokespersons will provide a short update on the latest developments in the judicial proceedings before the KSC, as well as on other public activities of the Court. Journalists will have the opportunity to ask questions. Pre-registration is required to attend each briefing. To pre-register, please send an email with name and affiliation to [email protected]. Deadline for pre-registration is every Thursday at 12:00. The Zoom details will be shared following pre-registration. Recordings of the update provided during the Weekly Press Briefings will be made available on the KSC YouTube Channel.

On 7 April 2025, the Pre-Trial Judge in the case against Thaçi et al. for charges related to the administration of justice issued a decision on Smakaj’s Defence application for a stay of proceedings. The Defence sought a stay, claiming that the SPO failed to disclose relevant information to the Pre-Trial Judge during the indictment confirmation process. Judge Marjorie Masselot rejected the Defence application, finding that the criteria for a permanent stay of proceedings had not been met. Specifically, Judge Masselot concluded, among other things, that the SPO did not violate its obligations by not including a specific witness interview in the material supporting the indictment, as this interview will be addressed at trial in light of the Parties’ arguments and evidence as a whole.