Exclusive: The full testimony of former prosecutor Maria Bamieh over EULEX scandals ( I)

In the same statement it shows how foreign office diplomats had asked her that she as “informants closed one eye” into corrupt relatives in Kosovo's largest mission (EULEX).

She had said she was forced to give up her job as a prosecutor in EULEX after finding evidence of her claims that top staff EULEX had taken a bribe and was co-operating with the killers.

According to her statement, EULEX stands behind the investigation and the process under way. She also mentions several raids she claims to have carried out EULEX.

Read her full statement, exclusively secured by Periscope:

“Former EULEX prosecutor Maria Bamieh's statement after court hearing against British state

Today, the Great Britain Tributal in London was held court hearings in which my complaint to the EULEX Mission was considered.

EULEX's argument was that I cannot sue them, since they are not legal persons.

We discovered in court that EULEX uses double standards, according to convenience: claims it does not represent legal bodies in cases when they are indicted, while in other cases they claim they are legal persons, so they are called as agreed. In international law you're either a legal person or you're not, but it can't happen in a court to claim that you're not a law person and then in the other court to claim that you're a law person. For example, you can't say I'm a legal person to tie a contract and then claim you're not a judicial person when you're indicted by someone for contradiction. This is a humiliating act for any rule of law mission and so much for Parliament and European Council to allow such abuse of law to suit their personal needs. Is that what they thought when they founded common travel? If so, this is an abuse of the concept of the legal person. The joint tour is a document, with which EULEX's mandate to Kosovo is established and extended.

At the same time they were defending that they did not represent legal bodies/persons, in another case they claimed EULEX could be indicted because it is legal person. Then they tried to claim that they embody restrictions regarding the legal person. They've been trying to say they're a law person in a limited way. The judge informed them that the legal person either exists or does not exist.

This manner of conduct by EULEX is insincere, dishonest and shocking. So that someone assigned as the Mission to the Rule of Law behaves the way EULEX has been brought through this developed procedure and other procedures.

EULEX has approached my defence attorneys and me with a self-continent prosecution because I have filed my suit and directed my course towards having a public department. And then they lied to Kosovo media as if they didn't make such threats even though I possessed the letter where and when the threats were made.

EULEX has entered with force into Chief of Intelligence's office and has taken all of Tolaj's wiretaps, denying it as well. They also threatened the journalist when she was trying to expose him.

If they don't have any mistakes then why are they hiding behind the legal person when we all know they're a legal person under Article 15 to guide them together. How can you trust them as one? The mission to rule the Law when they are brought in a way that will bring them to rest? It's true that this mission has little to do with rule of law, and that's about other goals, and I'm just using the rule of law as a kind of legitimacy to face you other businesses. I'm not sure but I believe this mission is one. Political mission, which is hidden in the rule of law mission.

EULEX has been trying to push the locals into the investigation by trying to stay on the side, while EULEX in reality stands back to investigating and criminally feeling. We all know that EULEX must first remove my immunity to enable them to deal with me. We also know that local prosecutors must first get consent from EULEX before conducting investigations for an international international. They would not have conducted investigations if there had been no preliminary hearing from EULEX, as EULEX told them due to immunity.

In 2013, after my suspension, EULEX under a press conference had promised to investigate all my claims! That never happened, either. They've just watched the Bombing Exploration case on Clinton Avenue and they've said there are some cases of investigation. However, they have never investigated the allegations about wiretapping Tolaj. They have stated before some journalists that they have done the investigation, that investigations have been conducted concerning the issues against him, but that's not true. If there were actually any real investigations, we would have a decision, and an argument given on the decision, on issues of public interest and transparency towards Kosovo citizens, they would have to publish the decision as they did in the case of Francesko Flori investigations.

Why has this never happened? They thought people would forget? As an organisation for rule of law that is passed Kosovo had to publish the investigation report, to provide the public with a full excuse report along with the investigators' names, the date when the report was made, which, along with an rational decision that confirms why they stay behind that there is insufficient evidence.

We have the right to know what steps of investigation has taken EULEX, in addition to raiding the Chief of Intelligence's office to get Tollaj's wiretaps. When the office staff complained in Brussels about the raid, EULEX has returned some of Tolay's wiretapping, but not all. This is easy to prove since the witnesses have had a list, in which they have verified what has been returned and what has not been returned. There's been great suspicions about this, since in the same time, Heike Sandorffs' office was booked to get documents from his office as well. Can anyone explain how an institution with rule of law operates in that way with its staff: office bets, forced entry into the office office office, breaking the safe, even using a local company that literally means burning it, but having access to the safe. What human rights follow EULEX behind these embarrassing actions.

If I've misinterpreted the simple words that are on the wire, he (Tolaj) has had the opportunity to clear up his words to the court today.

EULEX, however, stated that everything was in the eye, since it was supposedly Tolaj and his partners had known they were being bugged and they had created nebula with words. All this just to avoid my investigation.

However, this is completely unconventional, because EULEX has not heard them of that date, much more precisely of the date I did the raid on prison. Those conversations show clearly that Tolaj had no idea he was begging. He further discussed what he said and what he didn't say about the phone, while his interrogator turned it back to <x0oh what we can't do anymore. This is enough evidence that speaks of many other decisions that Tolaj and others did not know, so that EULEX statement is nothing but the tendency of covering its guilt: not having any investigations and losing my report.

Neither EULEX nor local prosecutors have conducted investigations into Francesko Flori or Ilir Tolaj in connection with wiretapping and intermediate meetings. However, local prosecutors want to investigate me because I prosecuted Mr. Toyn and Mr. Bukoshi based on facts and truth. That's very strange to me since rule of law turns out to be the same. The suspects could present the parachute to the case and respond if they have valid evidence for the court. It's true that they changed their defence lawyers and that's when the boys showed up. As much as asked for, Mr. Tolaj has claimed that I have understood the wiretaps according to my wish, without explaining to this day what you think of this and never mention that.

Unfortunately, the government of my country has not helped me since this incident was in 2012. I'm all alone. The embassy has informed me that the Office to Work Foreign cannot be involved. I couldn't understand that, because I knew that Mr. Giffon and the American Embassy were also very concerned about cases where their citizens faced problems. However, the real criminal here is EULEX and EULEX are the one to give full responsibility for its actions.

What's clear is that nothing has changed, despite the fact that I have spoken to the European Parliament and spoken in it The European Council. Even Jean Paul Jacques' report for coverage of mistakes, which has been issued recommendations, none of this is implemented until today.