“Haga cannot write Albanian history” Tromp speaks of expectations of the trial of former KLA leaders

It has stressed that international criminal procedures do not function on the logic of collective or historical reward, but on the assessment of individual responsibility, based on strict standards of evidence and procedural.

“hopes for a <x1fit>” of the KLA should be treated very carefully. International criminal procedures do not function on the logic of collective reward or historical symbolic, but on the assessment of individual criminal responsibility, based on strict standards of evidence and procedural”, she says. She has added that the way Kosovo Special Chambers deal with joint criminal enterprises and the existence or lack of a common criminal plan will have legal significance in future decisions
“However, the way Kosovo Special Chambers handle joint criminal companies and the existence or lack of a common criminal plan will be legally important in future decisions in Thaci case, etc. This is especially important because the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in previous cases involving two KLA members characterised responsibility for crimes as individual acts, clearly rejecting the existence of a joint criminal plan that could attrain the KLA as an organisation. In those cases, Tribunali did not find the existence of a criminal plan, and the KLA's armed struggle was understood as a resistance movement against the oppressive policies of the Serbian state. In that sense, the armed resistance of the Kosovo Albanian population was treated as a defence fight, in line with the principles of the UN Charter”, Tromp added. Tromp away, it also stressed that a favourable outcome for the accused could come only from legal technical scenarios such as the prosecutor's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable suspicion, successful defence challenges to high responsibilities or joint criminal enterprise, or procedural decisions leading to the removal or tightening of charges.

In this context, it is important to be clear what should be followed regarding special decisions. First, from a strict legal perspective, a favourable result for the accused could come only from legal technical scenarios, not from the broader narrativa on the legitimacy of Kosovo's liberation war. These scenarios include the prosecution's failure to meet the burden of evidence beyond reasonable doubt; successful defence challenges to ways of responsibility, such as high responsibility or joint criminal enterprise; or procedural decisions and evidence leading to the removal or tightening of charges. Even in that case, these results reflect the limits of the prosecution's test and not the judicial approval of any collective historical narrative”. “second, the Special Court's mandate is deliberately narrow and limited only to individual criminal cases. However, when the Court praises joint criminal enterprises and criminal intent in cases where all accused of being KLA members, its decisions will be correctly interpreted or wrong as an adoption or rejection of the KLA's role in the liberation war. These interpretations will then be used for different political and social purposes outside the legal field, both constructive and devastating”, she added.

Tromp, has made it clear that perception of procedures against former KLA members such as “criminalisation” should not be confused with historical justice. According to her, judges and lawyers cannot have the final word on history, as judicial decisions are related to acts and trials, while writing history is a continuous and revised process by historians and social scientists.

“Even if part of the public perceive these procedures as “criminalisation of some aspects of the KLA role, this should not be confused with historical justice or treated as a final reconstruction of Kosovo's past. Judges and lawyers don't have it, and they shouldn't have the last word on history. Judicial decisions are timed out, linked to specific charges, evidence records and legal frameworks. While the history text is alternative and accumulated: historians and social scientists review the same events for generations, assessing them again on the basis of new sources, perspectives, and social questions”. “This distinction is especially important for Kosovo. The deeper work of understanding the liberation war, its meanings, costs and consequences cannot be done by a court in The Hague. It must be undertaken within Kosovo itself. This requires sustained and institutionalised efforts to promote serious historical research, writing memories by direct participants, and systematic development of oral history and ethnographic projects. Many victims and witnesses remain silent, holding unresolved trauma; they need platforms to speak and to listen carefully and to integrity”, she added.

Tromp stressed that the deeper understanding of the liberation war, including its costs, consequences and messages, cannot be made by a court in The Hague, but must be undertaken within Kosovo itself. According to Tromp, the Kosovo Special Chambers cannot realise this task, and the primary responsibility to preserve the memory and understanding of war belongs to the society and the state of Kosovo.
She stressed that courts can only decide on individual criminal responsibility, but cannot determine collective memory, write national history or heal society -- the task belonging to Kosovo itself. In summary, the most realistic result in Kosovo's Special Chambers is legal, not symbolic. Courts may decide on individual criminal responsibility; they cannot determine collective memory, write national history, or heal society. These tasks belong to another field, and ultimately they belong to Kosovo itself”, Tromp told Blic newspaper.