Institutional Capacity in Combating High-Level Corruption: Insights from Kosovo’s Judicial Practice

Abstract

High-profile corruption remains one of the most serious challenges to the rule of law, democratic governance, and public confidence in state institutions. Despite the extensive legal and policy attention devoted to corruption, questions persist regarding the effectiveness of institutional responses, particularly in cases involving politically influential actors and senior public officials. This paper explores how institutional weaknesses influence the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of high-profile corruption cases, with a particular focus on Kosovo. It aims to identify the factors that facilitate or hinder accountability by comparing selected international corruption cases with prominent domestic cases. The study combines doctrinal legal analysis with a comparative examination of selected international and domestic corruption cases. The international component focuses on cases that attracted significant global attention and generated substantial institutional responses across multiple jurisdictions, while the domestic component examines some of the most prominent corruption proceedings conducted in Kosovo. The selected cases involve allegations against politically influential actors or senior public officials and provide a useful basis for assessing how different institutional environments respond to complex corruption allegations. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts depends not only on the existence of legal frameworks but also on the ability of institutions to apply them independently, consistently, and effectively. While the international cases demonstrate the importance of strong investigative mechanisms, institutional cooperation, and accountability structures, the Kosovo cases reveal recurring challenges related to lengthy proceedings, evidentiary difficulties, and inconsistent judicial outcomes. The study concludes that institutional capacity, prosecutorial effectiveness, and judicial consistency are decisive factors in determining whether high-profile corruption cases result in meaningful accountability.