That the approach of the Specialised Chambers has been at least strangely said in relation to the state’s independence it has created has been observed in acts and other judgments. That it has not addressed at all the context in which events have taken place (wars as a reaction to the Serb state’s terror over the civilian population and denial of the basic political rights of Albanians) and that those events have not been taken into account at all, not even as a relief circumstance is also evidenced.
But the climax lies in this paragraph of the summary of the act of September 16th: The Judge’s Body found that the four indictees and others in the leadership of the KLA, including those allegedly members of the NKP, had two objectives: Kosovo’s independence and the establishment of political and institutional control over what they hoped would be an independent Kosovo. These objectives were designed to be accomplished by means of military, political, and other means. The Judicial Chamber did not deem it necessary to determine whether these two objectives were, in itself, criminal or illegal. )
The seemingly innocent language itself, but essentially neutral in relation to independence from a Kosovo tribunal, makes it completely Sui Geners, local and international criminal law and humanitarian.
Why should a Kosovo court deal with whether it has judged necessary or unnecessary the agreement on whether the goal of independence was legitimate or criminal? Is it not clear that independence is legal, since the court itself has created the Assembly of Kosovo? What about the International Court of Justice ruling on the legality of the declaration of independence? NATO intervention.
Clearly, by relating the legality and goal of independence, the court aims to criminalise the activity of the four accused, as people outside of any context, are organised into a joint criminal enterprise to exercise political control with any means.
Political control in conquered and broken Kosovo by Serbia. And as such, as invaders, this court has never named Serbia.
How can we define this court as fair, as the defender of the victims, when it fails on the main test: not treating Serbia as the conqueror and independence of Kosovo as legal.
So this court is transformed into a political court, which deeply touches the foundations of the liberation war and tries indirectly to corrode its product, independence.
Source Layer: Signal