The special refuses Peter Shala's appeal, remains in force the order to damage victims

The specialist has announced that she has brought down Peter Shala's appeal against the order to damage, putting the court's previous ruling in force.

The court disclosed that it had left in force the order to retaligate Shala, and that eight victims participated in the reprobation process, which demanded compensation for the damage suffered.

Full communication:

RISKING ♪ FOR HAPPINESS

On January 29, 2026, the Court of Appeals panel in the C. Peter Shala, composed of Judge Michele Picard, Kai Ambos and Nina Jergensen, issued the first decision of Kosovo Specialised Chambers (DHSK) on appeal against the order for damage.

The Appeals panel left in effect the ruling for the damage to the Judicial Chamber against Mr. Shala following his conviction for war crimes of arbitrary detention, torture and unlawful murder. In all, eight victims participated in the process and demanded damage. On November 29, 2024, the Judicial Chamber ordered Mr. Shala pay the amount of 28,000 euros in compensation for the physical, mental and material damage suffered by the participating victims.

Mr. Appely. Shala contained five points, claiming mistakes in (i) the interpretation of the Judiciary Law in the context of the reforming process (Pika 1); (ii) assessing evidence supporting the alleged material damage suffered by the participating victims (Pica 2 and 3); and (ii) assessing his responsibility for reparation, claiming it resulted in a lot of damage allegedly made available with his role in committing crimes and overcoming his lack of financial means (PP 4). Mr. Shala also claimed that the Court of Appeals made a mistake with carrying out the damage process before making a decision on his appeal against the verdict of guilt and condemnation, and urged the Court of Appeals' panel to suspend the appeals against the Order for Distinction until the outcome of the appeals against the guilty verdict against him and the decision of the formal form in connection with actual consultations (Pika 5).

The Appeals panel dropped the five points by not confirming errors in the interpretation of the law or in assessing evidence from the Judicial Chamber. The Appeals Panel also found that, due to the completion of an appeal act on the foundation, issued on July 14, 2025 (Mr. Shala's suspension of the appeal review against the Order for Distrection was over. The Judicial Chamber noted that Mr. Shala was able to appeal the Order for Reinfectment and that the review of his appeal from the panel took place after the release of the Appeals Act, and deemed that the recovery process did not harm Mr. Shala, neither violated his right to fair and swift prosecution.