Hague-based judges convicted four former KLA leaders but acquitted them of crimes against humanity, separating individual responsibility from Kosovo’s independence struggle.

Former Kosovo president Hashim Thaçi has been sentenced to 25 years in prison after judges convicted him and three other former Kosovo Liberation Army leaders of war crimes committed during the 1998-1999 conflict. The first-instance judgment covers arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture and murder, while acquitting the defendants of crimes against humanity. All four retain the right to appeal.

Four convictions and four prison sentences

The Kosovo Specialist Chambers found all four defendants criminally responsible for the arbitrary detention of 385 people, cruel treatment involving 49 people, the torture of 303 and the murder of 96.

Thaçi and Jakup Krasniqi each received 25-year prison sentences. Kadri Veseli was sentenced to 18 years and Rexhep Selimi to 13 years. The court ordered that time already spent in detention be credited against their sentences.

The judges concluded that the defendants contributed to a common criminal purpose aimed at people perceived as opponents of the KLA’s political or military objectives. Those targeted included Kosovo Albanians associated with rival political and military groups, people alleged to have links with Serbian or Yugoslav authorities, and members of ethnic minorities, including Roma and Serbs.

According to the judgment, most of the victims had not participated in hostilities or presented a legitimate security threat. People labelled as collaborators or spies were detained without due process, physically and psychologically abused, intimidated or killed.

The panel found that Thaçi, then a member of the KLA General Staff and head of its Political Directorate, helped formulate and implement the policy. Judges also found that he personally participated in the arrest and detention of 13 parliamentarians and in the arrest, transfer and murder of Behajdin Allaqi.

The defendants had pleaded not guilty. Their sentences and convictions can be challenged before a separate appeals panel, meaning Wednesday’s ruling does not conclude the legal process.

What the judgment did not decide

The panel acquitted all four men of crimes against humanity. Prosecutors had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offences formed part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, the judges found. The defendants were also acquitted in relation to several specific alleged war-crime incidents.

This distinction matters. A conviction for serious wartime offences does not automatically establish every broader charge brought by prosecutors. The burden remained on the prosecution to prove each legal element and each defendant’s responsibility beyond reasonable doubt.

Presiding Judge Charles Smith also stressed that the proceedings were not a judgment on the legitimacy of the KLA or Kosovo’s pursuit of independence. Nor did the case determine responsibility for the extensive crimes committed against Kosovo Albanians by Serbian forces and paramilitary units.

That limitation does not place one community’s suffering above another. It reflects the narrower function of a criminal court: deciding whether specified defendants are individually responsible for offences established through admissible evidence.

Witnesses faced sustained pressure

The trial began in April 2023 and involved evidence from 273 witnesses. Judges admitted 5,467 exhibits, while the transcript ultimately exceeded 29,000 pages. A total of 156 victims participated through legal counsel.

The panel described a persistent climate of witness intimidation. Some prosecution witnesses withdrew earlier accounts, avoided basic details, repeated apparently learned statements or gave evidence the judges considered untruthful. Others testified despite efforts to discourage them.

This finding exposes one of the central difficulties facing post-conflict justice in closely connected communities. Witness protection is not merely an administrative concern. When people fear social exclusion, retaliation or violence, courts can lose access to evidence and victims can be denied an effective path to justice.

A politically charged ruling

Thaçi remains a major figure in Kosovo’s recent history. He represented the KLA during international negotiations, later served as prime minister and became president. He resigned from the presidency in 2020 after the indictment against him was confirmed.

For many Kosovo Albanians, the four defendants remain associated with liberation from Serbian rule. Thousands rallied in Pristina before the judgment, carrying Albanian flags and demanding their acquittal.

The Specialist Chambers are part of Kosovo’s judicial system but sit in The Hague and are staffed largely by international judges and personnel. Kosovo established the court through a constitutional amendment and legislation adopted in 2015. Its unusual structure was intended to permit sensitive cases to be heard outside the country’s intensely pressured political and security environment.

The judgment arrives amid continuing disputes across the Balkans over courts, wartime memory and the public treatment of former military leaders. Those tensions were also visible in the recent controversy over proposed state honours for Ratko Mladić, whose genocide and war-crimes convictions remain legally established.

Accountability loses credibility when it is applied only to adversaries. Equally, the prosecution of crimes committed by KLA members cannot be used to erase the systematic violence inflicted on Kosovo Albanians or to deny their right to dignity and political self-determination.

Victims remain at the centre

The appeal process will determine whether the convictions and sentences withstand further judicial scrutiny. Until then, the defendants retain their procedural rights, including the right to challenge errors of fact, law or procedure.

For survivors and relatives of those killed, however, the ruling already provides formal recognition that civilians and perceived political opponents were subjected to grave abuses. The enduring measure of the proceedings will be whether they protect witnesses, respect defence rights and establish responsibility without turning justice into another instrument of nationalist division.

Judges face competing claims over the former Philippine president’s health and detention before his November trial

Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte is expected to appear at the International Criminal Court in The Hague on Wednesday, his first public appearance in more than a year. The status conference comes as judges consider sharply opposed arguments about his fitness for trial, requests for further medical examination and whether he should remain in detention.

The hearing is a procedural step rather than the opening of Duterte’s trial, which is scheduled for 30 November. Presiding Judge Joanna Korner previously indicated that the 81-year-old was expected to attend unless a medical issue prevented his appearance.

Duterte has been held at the ICC detention centre in Scheveningen since his transfer to the court in March 2025. His earlier appearances and participation have been limited amid continuing arguments about his health.

Fitness for trial remains disputed

The court-appointed medical panel’s findings have become the central point of disagreement before Wednesday’s conference.

Duterte’s defence says he has substantial memory problems that prevent him from understanding the case fully, recalling events reliably or giving effective instructions to his lawyers. It has asked the judges to order neurological examinations and allow further questioning of the experts if additional assessments are refused.

The prosecution takes the opposite position. It argues that the panel’s assessment supports a finding that Duterte can exercise his procedural rights meaningfully with suitable practical accommodations. Prosecutors have also questioned the reliability of his effort during parts of the assessment.

Much of the underlying medical evidence remains redacted to protect confidential health information. That limits what the public can independently conclude about the competing claims. The judges have not yet issued their latest decision on fitness.

The distinction is important. Fitness to stand trial is not a judgment about guilt or innocence. It concerns whether an accused person can understand proceedings, communicate with counsel and participate effectively in a defence. A credible ruling must protect Duterte’s fair-trial rights while avoiding unnecessary delay in a case of exceptional importance to victims.

Three crimes-against-humanity charges

The ICC confirmed three counts of crimes against humanity against Duterte in April and committed him to trial. The charges concern alleged murder and attempted murder during what prosecutors describe as a widespread and systematic attack on civilians connected to the Philippines’ “war on drugs”.

The alleged conduct covers the period from November 2011 to March 2019, including Duterte’s years as mayor of Davao City and as Philippine president. He denies the charges and is presumed innocent unless prosecutors prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Philippines formally left the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, in March 2019. The court maintains that withdrawal did not remove its jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed while the country was a member. Duterte’s lawyers have challenged the court’s authority, but the proceedings have continued.

The European Times previously covered Duterte’s transfer into ICC custody and the UN human rights chief’s call for victims and witnesses to be protected against retaliation.

Detention and witness protection

Prosecutors have asked the trial chamber to keep Duterte in detention, arguing that the confirmed trial date and the possible consequences of conviction increase the risk that he could abscond. They also contend that release could create opportunities for interference with witnesses.

Duterte’s defence has indicated that it may seek another detention review if the judges find him unfit for trial. Lawyers representing victims, meanwhile, argue that continued detention remains necessary to secure his presence and protect people involved in the proceedings.

The victims’ position cannot determine the court’s decision, but their participation is an established part of the ICC system. Their lawyers have said victims expect to see Duterte in the courtroom. Independent Philippine reporting by VERA Files has detailed the competing submissions on health, detention and the risk of interference.

Wednesday’s hearing therefore carries significance beyond the sight of a former president in court. Judges must demonstrate that accountability for alleged mass abuses can proceed without weakening the rights of the accused. They must also ensure that victims and witnesses are not pushed to the margins of a case built around their experiences.

As the hearing had not begun at the time of publication, Duterte’s attendance and any decisions announced by the chamber remained to be confirmed.

Copenhagen summons Moscow’s ambassador after a near-miss involving a military helicopter

Denmark has summoned Russia’s ambassador after a Russian frigate fired two signal flares towards a Danish military helicopter in international waters off Gedser. One flare passed close to the aircraft, turning a routine surveillance flight into the latest hazardous encounter between Russian and NATO forces in the Baltic region.

The incident took place on Monday while a Danish Air Force Fennec helicopter was conducting what the military described as routine photographic monitoring of the frigate. The Danish Armed Forces said the Russian vessel fired two flares towards the aircraft and that one passed at close range.

Flares are pyrotechnic devices commonly used at sea to attract attention or communicate warnings. They are not missiles. Nevertheless, firing them close to an aircraft can endanger its crew, particularly when there has been no effective warning or coordination between the vessels and aircraft involved.

Denmark and Russia dispute the encounter

Denmark’s Foreign Ministry called the incident unacceptable and summoned Russian Ambassador Vladimir Barbin. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen described the action as reckless and placed it within what her government regards as a pattern of increasingly confrontational Russian behaviour around Europe.

Russia disputed Copenhagen’s interpretation. Barbin accused the Danish helicopter of conducting dangerous and provocative manoeuvres near the frigate. The Kremlin declined to offer a detailed account, saying it did not yet have sufficient information.

No independent public evidence has established the precise distance between the helicopter and the ship, or reconstructed the seconds before the flares were launched. That leaves important operational details unresolved. The confirmed facts are narrower: the frigate was in international waters, the Danish aircraft was photographing it, two flares were fired and one passed close to the helicopter.

The diplomatic confrontation unfolded alongside another Baltic security incident, in which NATO aircraft intercepted a drone over Lithuania. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the episodes reflected a wider pattern of Russian provocation, although the origin and purpose of the Lithuanian drone remained under investigation.

A dangerous space below open conflict

Denmark has not sought formal NATO consultations over the flare incident. That measured response reflects the difficulty facing European governments when military conduct is threatening but remains below the threshold of an armed attack.

Ignoring such encounters risks normalising unsafe behaviour. Reacting without restraint could allow a brief confrontation to escalate before commanders or governments fully understand what occurred. The immediate task is therefore to preserve flight and sensor records, establish whether warnings were transmitted and maintain reliable military communication channels.

The Danish straits are strategically important because they connect the Baltic Sea with the North Sea. Russian naval vessels and commercial shipping regularly pass through the area, while Denmark and its allies monitor military movements and infrastructure risks.

Danish defence intelligence warned in its 2025 public assessment that Russian forces were prepared to act aggressively in the region to deter NATO countries from challenging Moscow’s interests. It cited previous cases involving tracking radars, weapons directed towards Danish platforms and unsafe manoeuvres by Russian warships.

Monday’s encounter therefore did not emerge in isolation. Yet placing it in a wider pattern should not replace a specific investigation. Governments need to distinguish verified conduct from political inference, particularly where competing military accounts could shape public perceptions of whether an escalation was deliberate.

Readiness also requires restraint

The episode reinforces the need for European monitoring systems that can document incidents quickly and credibly. Radar data, cockpit recordings and maritime communications are not merely military assets; they can help governments explain events to the public and prevent disputed claims from driving escalation.

It also adds a maritime dimension to Europe’s broader debate about surveillance and air defence. As previous reporting on EU border security has shown, stronger detection must be accompanied by clear procedures, civilian warning systems and coordination between national authorities and NATO.

For military crews, merchant vessels and coastal communities, the danger lies not only in a planned attack. A flare, radar lock or abrupt manoeuvre can be misread in seconds. Professional restraint, transparent investigation and enforceable rules for close encounters are therefore part of deterrence, not alternatives to it.

Denmark’s diplomatic protest signals that it considers the frigate’s actions outside acceptable practice. The next measure of European readiness will be whether governments can combine that firmness with the disciplined evidence gathering needed to keep a dangerous encounter from becoming a larger crisis.

Danish MEP demands stronger enforcement, better workplace data and action against abusive subcontracting chains

Danish Left MEP Per Clausen has accused the European Commission of placing business mobility ahead of worker protection in its new Fair Labour Mobility Package. While welcoming plans to strengthen cross-border enforcement and digitalise social-security documents, he says the proposals fail to confront some of the practices that leave mobile workers vulnerable to exploitation.

The Commission’s package addresses a significant part of Europe’s labour market. According to its figures, 14.1 million EU citizens live in another member state, while around 10 million people live or work across national borders.

Brussels says the reforms will make it easier for workers to prove their social-security status, obtain recognition for qualifications and exercise their right to work elsewhere in the European Union. The package contains three proposed regulations, two directives and a communication.

Its three principal elements are a European Social Security Pass, known as ESSPASS; a stronger mandate for the European Labour Authority; and new measures intended to make professional skills and qualifications more portable. The proposals will require scrutiny and negotiation by the European Parliament and the Council before they can become law.

Clausen, a member of Parliament’s Employment and Social Affairs Committee, said the initiative was necessary but described the initial proposals as “more about empty rhetoric and political posturing than genuine, useful proposals”.

Mobility without sufficient protection

The Commission presents the initiative as a way to remove administrative barriers while improving enforcement. Its initial account of the Fair Labour Mobility Package says ESSPASS would incorporate digital versions of the A1 social-security certificate and European Health Insurance Card into the European Digital Identity Wallet.

The A1 certificate establishes which country’s social-security legislation applies to a worker temporarily active across a border. It is not simply proof that ordinary taxes have been paid. Its value for enforcement therefore depends on whether inspectors can connect verified social-security information with the employer, workplace and actual conditions under which the person is working.

Clausen argues that the proposed system does not go far enough in making those connections. He wants ESSPASS to contain or connect inspectors with information on the workplace and location, working hours, company identity and workers’ qualifications.

“The package should be about fair labour mobility, not merely the mobility of labour,” he said.

That criticism draws a distinction between making cross-border employment administratively easier and ensuring that mobile workers receive lawful pay, working time, social protection and safe conditions. The Commission says its proposals pursue both objectives, including by reducing fraud and giving authorities more effective verification tools.

As The European Times reported before the package’s presentation, digital documents can reduce uncertainty for legitimate employers and workers. They cannot, however, replace inspections, accessible complaints procedures or effective sanctions where employment relationships are deliberately concealed.

Subcontracting remains a fault line

Clausen’s strongest criticism concerns long subcontracting chains. Such arrangements can distribute responsibility across several companies, sometimes operating in different countries, making it harder for workers and inspectors to identify who is responsible for wages, social contributions and workplace safety.

He said it would represent a “missed opportunity” if the legislation did not address abuse within these chains. He and other lawmakers are examining possible amendments.

The Commission’s initial public summary does not list subcontracting-chain liability among the package’s headline measures. Clausen is therefore expected to press for rules that connect mobility reforms with clearer corporate responsibility, particularly in sectors where temporary posting and layered contracting are common.

A stronger European Labour Authority

Clausen is more supportive of the proposal to reinforce the European Labour Authority, although he says the agency needs practical powers rather than a broader mandate in name alone.

He wants the authority to be able to request, collect and cross-reference information from posting declarations, tachographs and national registers. In his view, ESSPASS should also be interoperable with these systems so that inspectors can compare company declarations with workplace realities and conduct more informed risk assessments.

This would represent a more enforcement-oriented approach to digitalisation. It could help authorities identify conflicting records or suspicious employment patterns, but it would also require clear data-protection safeguards, defined access rights and reliable procedures for workers to correct inaccurate information.

The debate is likely to continue as Parliament begins examining the legislative texts. Clausen is co-organising a cross-party discussion on the package on 30 September, together with trade union representatives and Danish lawmakers from the Social Democratic and Green groups. A representative of the employment commissioner’s cabinet is expected to participate.

The package gives EU lawmakers an opportunity to make cross-border work simpler and more secure. Its success will ultimately be judged not only by how quickly documents can move between national systems, but by whether workers can rely on those systems when their wages, safety or social rights are at risk.