<![CDATA[This paper examines trial in absentia as a procedural mechanism that enables criminal proceedings to continue when a defendant evades justice or cannot be extradited, distinguishing it from civil proceedings where the respondent is absent from the hearing. While Croatia, Albania, and Germany have long recognized and applied this institute within their criminal justice systems, Kosovo excluded it from 1999 to 2019 during its post-conflict legal transition under international administration. Research on post-conflict states’ compliance with European human rights standards regarding trial in absentia remains limited. The reintroduction of this mechanism through Kosovo’s 2022 Criminal Procedure Code marks a significant shift in its procedural framework. Using legal, comparative, and analytical methods, the study examines legislation, judicial practice, and case law from Kosovo, Croatia, Albania, and Germany to identify convergences and divergences in the application of trial in absentia and to evaluate the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence on national legal frameworks. Findings reveal that although Croatia, Albania, and Germany have long implemented trial in absentia, ECtHR case law has occasionally identified inconsistencies with fair trial guarantees. Kosovo’s first trial in absentia in 2024 thus represents a crucial test for its reformed procedural framework. The study concludes that while efficiency in criminal proceedings is essential, it must not come at the expense of procedural safeguards and adherence to international human rights standards. By situating Kosovo’s evolving practice within established European models, this research contributes to comparative criminal procedure scholarship and the broader discourse on the normative boundaries of trial in absentia.]]>
