The public statement issued by the Directorate of Education of the Municipality of Prishtina regarding an activity conducted at “Xhevdet Doda” High School by the Youth Initiative for Human Rights (YIHR), followed by additional public reactions, constitutes an attempt to deflect institutional responsibility and shift blame onto a youth organization. By announcing possible measures and publicly framing YIHR as a problem, a misleading narrative of procedural violations and propaganda is being constructed, despite the absence of evidence for either.
The activity in question was a standard civic education session focusing on the Specialist Chambers, an institution established by the Assembly of Kosovo itself. It was conducted with the approval of the school and was based entirely on publicly available information. For years, YIHR, like many other civil society organizations, has carried out similar activities in schools and universities across Kosovo, openly and with the knowledge of the relevant authorities.
If these activities are now being presented as problematic, responsibility rests with the institutions that approved and allowed them. Those institutions should explain to the public why such practices were tolerated and supported for so long if they are now considered unacceptable. The fact that no objections were raised until now clearly indicates that these activities do not constitute any procedural or legal violation.
The political sensitivity surrounding the Specialist Chambers, particularly in the current climate, must not be used as a pretext for censorship, publicly intimidating tactics, defamation, or the targeting of civil society organizations. No issue, regardless of how sensitive or politicized it may be, should be treated as a taboo that limits open discussion and public information. Our history has taught us a fundamental lesson. The right to freedom of assembly, expression, and discussion is not optional. It is not something to be defended only when it is comfortable, but especially when it is difficult and challenging. A climate that punishes discussion does not produce stronger citizens, it produces fragile institutions and an insecure public life.
Had these reactions truly been driven by the public interest, this moment could have been used to discuss the substance of the activity itself. What was presented, whether the content reflected the context and characteristics on which the court was founded, whether it sparked genuine dialogue among students, and whether it left room for critical discussion about a complex and highly unusual judicial system. It would also have raised the question of whether the school and the municipality fulfilled their roles as responsible partners and oversight bodies.
For decades, civil society organizations in Kosovo have played a central role in civic education and non-formal learning, helping to address gaps within the public education system. Public institutions should recognize such cooperation as a valuable opportunity to improve the quality of education for children and young people, especially in fostering critical thinking and democratic values.
This case highlights a fragmented institutional approach to civic education, one that lacks a long-term vision and is unduly reactive to public pressure. Instead of responding with fear and public attacks, municipal authorities, schools, and other relevant institutions should work toward building clear mechanisms for cooperation and mutual support that strengthen civic education and democratic development. Situations like this should serve to expand, not restrict, the space for civic engagement, while ensuring that collaboration is governed by transparent and consistent rules.
We call on the Directorate of Education of the Municipality of Prishtina and all other relevant actors to immediately cease the stigmatization of, and attacks on, civil society organizations and to replace punitive and inflammatory rhetoric with responsibility, transparency, and constructive dialogue.
