Parliament speaker Afrim Gaši has an explanation for the post in which he backed the four convicted former KLA leaders: it was personal, not institutional. At today's briefing with journalists he repeated that he expressed the view on his personal Facebook profile and that nowhere in it did he invoke parliament as the institution he presides over.

"I think it is possible to make the distinction. I cannot always speak on behalf of parliament," Gaši said, adding that he has a right to privacy and to an opinion as a citizen and as a politician, regardless of the office he currently holds.

The post came on 16 September, the same day the Specialist Chambers handed down verdicts against Hashim Thaçi, Jakup Krasniqi, Kadri Veseli and Rexhep Selimi. Gaši wrote at the time, among other things, that they belong to a glorious chapter in Kosovo's history.

Where the argument breaks

The right to a personal opinion is not in dispute. Every politician has it, and that is not up for debate. But there are offices where the line between personal and institutional is not drawn by the person holding it - it is drawn by the office. Speaker of parliament is one of them, alongside head of state and president of a court.

The reason is practical, not moralising. When the first figure of the legislature publicly judges a final court verdict as unjust towards those convicted, the institutions that work with that legislature read it too. The profile it was written on does not change the office of the person writing. If it did, every official would have a second channel for statements without consequences.

SDSM responded that international court rulings must be respected and pointed to double standards, stressing that the court tried individuals, not a nation. That is the neutral and accurate formulation of the matter: this concerns four convicted individuals and one specific verdict, not collective guilt.

Gaši today called on all MPs to take a step towards finally forming the inquiry commission on Kočani. That call is right and long overdue. But the same argument about the weight of the office applies in both cases - it is precisely because the speaker's word carries weight that he is needed for the inquiry commission. And precisely why it cannot be set aside when a verdict is involved.