English - Eulex

a) War Crimes against the Civilian Population, Terrorism, Multiple
Aggravated murder
In January 2009, in the course of the transfer of cases, UNMIK international judges handed over to EULEX
judges 3 criminal cases involving war crimes charges which were pending appeal of the first instance
verdict before the Supreme Court of Kosovo. All three war crimes cases were selected for the jurisdiction
of EULEX judges sitting at the Supreme Court as this offence is within their exclusive competence.
Selim Krasniqi et alia
The criminal case against Selim Krasniqi was completed on 10 April 2009: the appeals filed on behalf of
the defendants were partially granted, and their sentences reduced. The case involved allegations of an
unlawful detention centre run by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in Rahovec/Orahovac municipality.
Between 1 May 1998 and 31 August 1998, Selim Krasniqi, in complicity with others, and in a criminal plot
to unlawfully detain Kosovo Albanian civilians, participated in the illegal arrest and detention of Kosovo
Albanian civilians suspected of collaboration with Serbs, and held them in Dranovc/Drenovac village in
inhumane conditions, and subjected them to beatings. Among those civilians 12 individuals – who were
arrested and illegally detained and beaten – were identified in the verdict.
On 10 August 2006 a panel of three international (UNMIK) judges in Prizren District Court found Selim
Krasniqi and two other defendants guilty of the charges, which qualified as war crimes against the civilian
population. All three defendants received seven years imprisonment.
The three defendants appealed against the verdict in the Supreme Court. On 10 April 2009, the appellate
panel of the Supreme Court, composed of three EULEX judges and two Kosovo judges, rendered its
judgment on the appeals. Below is one of the main points raised in the Appeal and the conclusions reached
by the Supreme Court with regard to the applicability of the provisions of international humanitarian law
in this case.
The Appeal pointed out that for there to be a violation of international humanitarian law, there must be
an armed conflict. The appeal contended that the temporal and geographical scope of the “armed conflict”
does not extend beyond the precise time and place of the hostilities.
The Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY in the case of Prosecutor
vs. Dusco Tadic in which ICTY found that “the definition of “armed conflict” varies depending on whether
the hostilities are international or internal but, contrary to Appellant’s contention, the temporal and
geographical scope of both internal and international armed conflicts extends beyond the exact time and
place of hostilities. With respect to the temporal frame of reference of international armed conflicts, each
of the four Geneva Conventions contains language intimating that their application may extend beyond
the cessation of fighting. For example, both Conventions I and III apply until protected persons who have
fallen into the power of the enemy have been released and repatriated ...” 2
2 See ICTY, Prosecutor vs. Dusco Tadic, Decision on interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction of 2 October 1995, paragraph 67
11