When Justice Is Misused as a Weapon Against Former KLA Members

In Defence of the Citizens of the Republic of Kosovo, Against Politically Motivated Prosecution, and for the Rigorous Application of Article 3 of INTERPOL

By Isuf B. Bajrami

The arrest of a citizen of the Republic of Kosovo on the basis of a request from the authorities of Serbia, particularly where the allegations relate to the period of the war in Kosovo and to the activities of members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), requires a serious, principled, and legally grounded response.

This response is not against justice.

It is a response in defence of justice.

We believe in individual responsibility for every proven crime and in the right of every victim to justice. But justice must never be transformed into an instrument of retaliation, political pressure, or a continuation of conflict by legal means.

No citizen should be pursued, arrested, or treated as guilty merely because of their alleged membership in an armed formation, without a concrete allegation, individual evidence, and a fair and impartial process.

1. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IS INDIVIDUAL

One of the fundamental principles of justice is that criminal responsibility is attributed to an individual for a specific act.

A person's participation in the Kosovo Liberation Army cannot, in itself, be transformed into evidence of criminal responsibility for a particular crime.

If a concrete allegation exists, it must identify the alleged offence, the time, place, circumstances, and individual responsibility of the person accused. It must be supported by evidence and examined by a competent, independent, and impartial judicial authority.

Membership is not evidence. Political history is not evidence. The status of having been a combatant is not proof of guilt.

Guilt must be established individually and in accordance with the law.

This principle is consistent with INTERPOL's own practice concerning the processing of information through its systems. INTERPOL's Repository of Practice explains that the facts supporting a request must correspond to the charges and establish a concrete link between the alleged conduct and the individual. A general description of a crime, accompanied only by a general assertion that an individual was "involved", is not sufficient; the individual's specific role or activity must be established in the information submitted.¹

2. ARTICLE 3 OF INTERPOL IS NOT A MERE LEGAL DECORATION

Particular attention must be paid to Article 3 of the Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organization – INTERPOL.

Article 3 provides:

"It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character."

This is not a symbolic provision.

It is a fundamental limitation on the activities of INTERPOL.

INTERPOL identifies neutrality as one of the principles governing its international police-cooperation activities. Its legal framework expressly prohibits the Organization from undertaking interventions or activities of a political, military, religious, or racial character.²

INTERPOL further explains that requests for Notices and Diffusions are reviewed for compliance with its Constitution, Rules on the Processing of Data, General Assembly resolutions, and the Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3. Requests that fail to comply with Article 3 may be denied.³

Accordingly, when a request for international police cooperation concerns events arising from an armed conflict and involves individuals associated with a political or military organization, a fundamental question must be asked:

Are we dealing with the prosecution of a concrete and individual ordinary criminal offence, or is there a risk that international police-cooperation mechanisms are being used in pursuit of political or military objectives?

This question cannot be ignored.

3. ARTICLE 3 MUST BE ASSESSED ON THE REALITY OF THE CASE, NOT MERELY ITS LEGAL LABEL

A matter cannot automatically be characterized as an ordinary criminal case merely because the request is formally presented using criminal-law terminology. INTERPOL's own practice requires a substantive assessment of the circumstances of the case.

Its Repository of Practice explains that cases involving military aspects require a case-by-case analysis. It identifies several different scenarios, including purely military offences, involvement of military tribunals, ordinary crimes committed in a military context, acts committed in an armed conflict, and international crimes containing military elements.?

This distinction is critically important.

The fact that an alleged offence occurred during an armed conflict does not, by itself, mean that the matter is automatically of a military character under Article 3.

At the same time, the existence of a conventional criminal label does not eliminate the obligation to examine the military and political context of the case.

The proper question is therefore:

What is the real nature of the case, what are the concrete facts, and do political or military elements prevail over the ordinary-law criminal character of the alleged conduct?

This assessment must be made on the facts of the individual case.

4. THE WAR IN KOSOVO MUST NOT BE TURNED INTO A BASIS FOR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

The war in Kosovo was an armed conflict, and allegations relating to that period must be addressed in accordance with applicable international law and appropriate judicial standards.

However, even where crimes committed during an armed conflict are alleged, responsibility must be established on the basis of the concrete acts and individual conduct of the person concerned.

There can be no presumption that a person is criminally responsible merely because they were a member of the KLA.

Nor should an international police-cooperation mechanism be used to create collective responsibility for former members of the KLA.

If a person is accused of a crime, the evidence should be presented.

If individual evidence exists, it should be examined.

If individual responsibility exists, it should be established through a lawful and fair judicial process.

But where a request relies primarily upon a person's membership in an armed formation, there is a legitimate basis for demanding a thorough examination of the factual basis, purpose, and character of the request.

The issue is not whether crimes committed during a conflict should be investigated. They should. The issue is whether the individual person is being pursued on the basis of specific evidence concerning specific conduct, or whether the person's historical affiliation is being used as a substitute for proof.

5. THE REQUEST MUST DEMONSTRATE THE CONCRETE CRIMINAL BASIS OF THE ALLEGATIONS

If the Serbian authorities claim that a citizen of Kosovo is suspected of a specific criminal offence, the request should identify and substantiate, to the extent required by the applicable legal framework:

the alleged offence;

when and where it allegedly occurred;

the specific act attributed to the individual;

the evidence connecting the individual to that act;

the factual circumstances supporting the allegation;

and the legal basis upon which international cooperation is being sought.

A general formulation linking an individual to the KLA or to the war in Kosovo is not, by itself, a substitute for individual evidence.

Justice requires individual evidence, not collective labels.

This is consistent with INTERPOL's own practice, which requires the facts supporting a request to establish a concrete connection between the individual and the alleged criminal conduct.¹

The mere existence of a historical, political, military, or organizational connection cannot automatically establish personal criminal responsibility.

6. THE EXISTENCE OF A RED NOTICE DOES NOT ESTABLISH GUILT

For the sake of legal accuracy, an important distinction must be made concerning INTERPOL Red Notices.

A Red Notice is a request to law-enforcement authorities worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. It is based on an arrest warrant or court order issued by the judicial authorities of the requesting country. Member countries apply their own laws when deciding whether to arrest the person.

Most importantly:

**A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant.**?

The person is wanted by the requesting country or international tribunal, not by INTERPOL itself.

INTERPOL cannot compel a member country to arrest a person who is the subject of a Red Notice.

Each country decides what legal effect it gives to a Red Notice and whether its national authorities have the legal authority to make an arrest.?

Therefore, the existence of a Red Notice must not be presented as an international judicial determination of guilt.

INTERPOL is a mechanism for international police cooperation. It is not a criminal court and it does not determine criminal guilt.

7. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DO NOT DISAPPEAR BECAUSE OF AN INTERNATIONAL REQUEST

Every detained person retains fundamental rights.

Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to liberty and security and sets out the circumstances in which deprivation of liberty may be lawful. It also guarantees the right of a detained person to have the lawfulness of their detention decided speedily by a court.?

Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. It also provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.?

These safeguards are particularly important in proceedings that may result in extradition or other forms of international transfer.

A citizen of Kosovo must therefore not be treated merely as the object of a foreign request.

They must be treated as a person possessing fundamental rights.

Any decision concerning arrest, detention, extradition, or surrender must be subject to the applicable legal safeguards and judicial scrutiny required by the relevant jurisdiction and international human-rights standards.

8. AGAINST THE USE OF JUSTICE AS A TOOL OF RETALIATION

We oppose any attempt to use justice as a continuation of the political and military conflict of the past.

If crimes have been committed, they must be investigated.

If evidence exists, it must be presented.

If individual responsibility exists, it must be established by an independent and impartial judicial authority.

But justice cannot be used as a weapon to pursue people because of their identity, political affiliation, historical role, or alleged membership in an armed organization.

The same principle must apply regardless of the identity of the accused or the state submitting the request.

We do not claim that every request submitted by Serbia is automatically political.

That would itself be an unjustified generalization.

We insist, however, that no request should be treated as automatically legitimate merely because it originates from a state authority.

The request must be examined on the basis of the facts, evidence, purpose, legal basis, and overall circumstances of the case.

Any indication that international police-cooperation mechanisms are being used for political retaliation must therefore be subjected to serious and rigorous legal scrutiny.

9. OUR REQUEST TO INTERPOL

We call upon INTERPOL to ensure that every request submitted by the Serbian authorities against citizens of Kosovo, where the allegations relate to the period of the war in Kosovo, is examined individually, impartially, comprehensively, and in accordance with the INTERPOL Constitution and applicable rules.

We call in particular for an assessment of:

a) whether there is a specific and individual criminal allegation;

b) whether concrete information and evidence exist linking the individual to the alleged conduct;

c) whether the facts submitted correspond to the allegations;

d) whether the request contains political or military elements;

e) whether political or military elements prevail over the ordinary-law criminal character of the alleged conduct;

f) whether the request complies with Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution;

g) whether the processing of the relevant information complies with INTERPOL's Rules on the Processing of Data;

h) whether the individual circumstances and context of the case have been adequately considered;

i) and whether the fundamental rights of the person concerned are being respected.

INTERPOL states that requests for Notices and Diffusions undergo legal and quality-compliance review by its Notices and Diffusions Task Force. The review is based on the Constitution, the Rules on the Processing of Data, relevant General Assembly resolutions, and the Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3.³

INTERPOL also states that where a Notice or Diffusion is denied because it does not comply with Article 2(1) or Article 3, further cooperation through INTERPOL is not permitted on that matter.³

We therefore call for these standards to be applied rigorously, consistently, and without double standards.

10. A CALL TO STATES THAT RECEIVE SUCH REQUESTS

We call upon the authorities of every state in which a citizen of Kosovo may be arrested on the basis of a request from Serbia:

Do not act automatically.

Examine the legal basis.

Examine the evidence.

Examine the nature of the allegation.

Examine the concrete connection between the individual and the alleged offence.

Examine the circumstances in which the alleged conduct occurred. Examine the broader context where relevant.

Examine whether political or military elements are present.

Examine the fundamental rights of the individual.

And, above all, examine whether international-cooperation mechanisms are being used consistently with the rule of law and the principles governing INTERPOL.

A state that respects the rule of law must not act merely as a mechanical executor of a foreign request.

It must apply its own legal safeguards, provide the judicial scrutiny required by its domestic law, and ensure that any deprivation of liberty or extradition procedure complies with applicable legal and human-rights standards.

11. OUR PRINCIPLE: JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS AND JUSTICE FOR THE ACCUSED

Defending the rights of former KLA members does not mean denying the suffering of victims.

It does not mean denying the possibility that crimes may have been committed during the war.

It does not mean opposing legitimate investigations.

And it does not mean claiming that any individual should be above the law.

Quite the opposite.

Every victim has the right to justice.

Every genuine crime must be investigated.

Every perpetrator, regardless of identity or affiliation, must be individually accountable where guilt is established according to law.

But the same principle requires that every accused person be treated as an individual, not as a member of a collective category.

Justice must distinguish between evidence and association.

Between individual responsibility and collective identity.

Between criminal prosecution and political retaliation.

Between legitimate international police cooperation and the misuse of international mechanisms.

That distinction is essential to the rule of law.

12. CONCLUSION

We stand in defence of the citizens of the Republic of Kosovo and former members of the Kosovo Liberation Army against any arbitrary, discriminatory, or politically motivated prosecution.

This defence does not mean opposing justice.

On the contrary.

We demand more justice, more evidence, more impartiality, and greater respect for human rights.

If a citizen has committed a crime, that person must be held individually accountable before the law.

If there is evidence, it must be examined.

If there is individual responsibility, it must be established through a fair and lawful judicial process.

But if a citizen is pursued because of their membership in the KLA, because of their historical role in the war in Kosovo, or because of political or retaliatory motives, such conduct cannot be accepted as justice.

Justice cannot be a weapon.

INTERPOL cannot be an instrument of retaliation.

Membership in the KLA cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt.

Criminal responsibility must be individual.

Evidence must be concrete.

The process must be fair.

The law must be applied without political motives.

The citizens of Kosovo have the right to dignity, liberty, security, and a fair trial.

Every international mechanism must operate in the service of law and justice - not in the service of political retaliation.

Footnotes and Legal Sources

1. INTERPOL, Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, Third Edition, November 2024. INTERPOL's Repository of Practice explains that, when assessing information submitted through its channels, the facts supporting the request must correspond to the charges and establish a concrete link between the individual and the alleged conduct. General information concerning a crime and a general assertion that an individual was "involved" are not sufficient; the individual's specific role or activity must be established. The current Repository of Practice is officially published by INTERPOL as the third edition, November 2024.

2. INTERPOL Constitution and Legal Framework. Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution provides: "It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character." INTERPOL's legal framework makes the Constitution and related legal instruments available through its official Legal Framework.

3. INTERPOL, Compliance and Review. INTERPOL states that its Notices and Diffusions Task Force conducts quality and legal-compliance reviews of incoming requests. The review is based on the INTERPOL Constitution, the Rules on the Processing of Data, General Assembly resolutions, and the Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3. INTERPOL further states that where a Notice or Diffusion is denied because of non-compliance with Article 2(1) or Article 3, further cooperation through INTERPOL is not permitted on that matter.

4. INTERPOL, Repository of Practice – Military Aspects. The current Repository of Practice contains a specific section addressing "Military aspects". It states that Article 3 prohibits INTERPOL from undertaking activities of a military character and that cases with military aspects require a case-by-case analysis. It distinguishes between purely military offences, involvement of military tribunals, ordinary crimes committed in a military context, acts committed in an armed conflict, and international crimes containing military elements.

5. INTERPOL, About Red Notices. INTERPOL defines a Red Notice as a request to law-enforcement authorities worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. It expressly states that a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant, that the person is wanted by the requesting country or international tribunal rather than by INTERPOL itself, and that member countries apply their own laws in deciding whether to arrest the person.

6. European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 5 and 6. Article 5 protects the right to liberty and security and provides, among other safeguards, for judicial review of the lawfulness of detention. Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal and establishes the presumption of innocence.

7. INTERPOL, Human Rights and International Police Cooperation. In November 2024, INTERPOL announced the updated Repository of Practice and explained that it provides greater insight into how the Organization assesses member countries' requests for international police cooperation, including Notices and Diffusions, in light of Articles 2(1) and 3 of its Constitution. INTERPOL stated that its Notices and Diffusions Task Force conducts a robust legal-compliance review and may authorize or deny requests.

8. INTERPOL, About Notices. INTERPOL explains that Diffusions are another mechanism through which member countries may request cooperation from other member countries. Red Diffusions concerning wanted persons are checked for compliance, and a diffusion will not be entered into INTERPOL's database if it is of a political, military, religious, or racial character in violation of Article 3.

9. INTERPOL, Legal Documents. INTERPOL's official Legal Framework includes the Constitution, Rules on the Processing of Data, and the Repository of Practice on Articles 2 and 3, among other legal instruments governing international police cooperation and the processing of information through INTERPOL's systems.

10. European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights. The official text of the Convention confirms the protections contained in Articles 5 and 6 concerning liberty and security, judicial review of detention, fair trial guarantees, independence and impartiality of the tribunal, and the presumption of innocence.

Legal and Public Policy note

This document is a public statement and principled legal-policy position. It is not intended to constitute a legal opinion concerning any particular individual case.

In an actual arrest, extradition, or surrender matter, the applicable law of the state where the person is located must be examined separately, together with the specific request submitted by the requesting authorities, any arrest warrant or court order, the existence and status of any Red Notice or Diffusion, the evidence relied upon, the applicable extradition framework, and the legal remedies available to the individual concerned.

Nothing in this statement should be interpreted as claiming that every request originating from Serbia is inherently political or unlawful.

The central principle is narrower and more fundamental:

Every request must be examined individually.

Every allegation must be supported by concrete facts.

Every individual must be assessed on the basis of their own conduct.

Every potential political or military element must be examined under the applicable INTERPOL standards.

And every person deprived of liberty must retain the fundamental rights guaranteed by applicable domestic and international law.

The purpose of this document is therefore not to place anyone above the law.

It is to insist that the law itself must remain above politics, retaliation, collective labels, and the unresolved conflicts of the past.

JUSTICE MUST REMAIN JUSTICE.

NOT A WEAPON.

The Land of Leka,19.08.2026