“The Guardian” reveals Schwendiman withdrawal background from the Special

The prestigious British newspaper The Guardian has dedicated an article to Special Court Chief Prosecutor David Schwendimann, who will leave The Hague in April of this year. Schwendiman points to the reasons for his departure, while also suggesting that those investigated by the Special should not rejoice because his departure will not interfere with the work of the court.

The tribunal's chief prosecutor, who will investigate war crimes in Kosovo, has said he is quitting his job in this court in a critical phase, leaving him without any specific offspring -- largely due to the neglect of the US State Department.

David Schwendiman said he had asked the State Department for more than a year to make a decision on the future of office at The Hague tribunal. But he heard just two weeks ago that he had to leave in April, thus allowing little time for a replacement to be found.

Schwendiman said he has no idea if they have started searching to find his successor in this court.

I have not been given any guarantees. For two weeks it's total silence, “he said in a phone call with Guardian from The Hague.

The court is created according to Kosovo laws, but it is based in the Dutch capital in order to protect itself from political pressure and threats.

Schwendiman's experience reflects frequent reports of indecision and paralysis in a state department facing deep budget cuts, which is fraught with high-level staff shortages

This vacuum, taking place at the head of the Kosovo Court, is coming at an uncertain time for the region. Ten years after Kosovo declared independence from Serbia, following a NATO uprising and intervention, the country's future has not yet been resolved.

Belgrade, Moscow and their allies refuse to recognise its independence, and ethnic Serb enclaves on Kosovo territory remain powerful potential points.

The court, also known as the “Specialists' Chamber” created in 2016, has made substantial progress in the accusations against some leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army (UÇK), the atrocities and crimes they committed against ethnic Serbs and Kosovars during and shortly after the 1998-99 conflict.

The key suspects are reportedly senior Kosovo government officials, and in January of this year the ruling party made efforts to abolish the law supporting the existence of this court.

The lack of war crimes charges against the actions of KLA members is seen as injustice by most Serbs, while Kosovars complain it has brought about a culture of impunity that has strengthened organised crime and the government's irresponsible.

When the court was founded in 2016, Schwendiman, a US lawyer with extensive experience in international war crimes cases, was elected as its first special prosecutor.

He told Guardian that he agreed to take the workplace provided its financial and political independence could be secured and that he would serve a four-year term by 2020.

Although his appointment as a senior foreign service officer will expire two years before his mandate at The Hague ends, Obama administration officials had assured him that his service would be extended to allow him to complete his term as prosecutor.

But, he claims that after the change of administration, he had not received answers for a while, saying that even professionals in the department had understood the issues.

However, he received no instructions until he was called to the US Embassy in The Hague on 13 February, where he was announced he would have to hand over the mandate in late March.

I was told: Thank you for your service, but they will not be immune to rules”, he said.

Choosing a successor will be complex. European officials will decide how this should be done. They reportedly favour a US prosecutor to take office so as to keep Washington engaged in Kosovo.

Schwendiman insisted that his departure in a short time would not impede the court's work.

“People in the region -- those who need to be concerned that they can be tried -- have nothing to rejoice at, he insisted.

However, if a decision is made that the charges should wait until the appointment of a permanent chief prosecutor, then the postponement may be substantial until a successor is found, approved and brought to speed up 700,000 pages and hundreds of interviews the court has collected. /Express/