Kosovo Institute for Justice: Lumez file to investigate EULEX prosecutors

The Kosovo Institute for Justice has called for independent investigations into Aleksandar Lumez's file on the handing of a jurisdictional exam through the creation of a team of EULEX prosecutors with American, British and German prosecutors.

IKD through a reaction says that based on the research of the team “Justice Trust” and Kohavision, which have verified the manipulation of Alexander Lumez's law enforcement file, IKD requires independent, impartial and professional investigations.

Such a thing, The IKD estimates that it is not happening because the investigations are under way by the opinion of chief state prosecutor, prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, who has long served Chief Prosecutor Lumezi directly and who in any way handles Lumez cases, the prosecutor of the case of telephone theft at the home of Chief Prosecutor Lumezi.

“Investments are being conducted by investigative financial crimes officers and not by investigative police officers dealing with the investigation of forged documents under the Kosovo Police; 3) Viewing the blind defense response of the State Prosecutor's Council for Chief Prosecutor Alexander Lumezi; 4) Seeing the blind protection of the chief state prosecutor from the Kosovo Prosecutors' Association; 5) seeing the justice ministry's publicly expressed security, Abelard Tahiri, who has said within the week they will complete investigations in the case of the Rivers file. All these superior reasons and the dilemmas raised below in this response cause the IKD to express public concern and raise doubts about independence, impartiality and professionalism of these investigations, which are being conducted by the State Chief Chief Prosecutor, prosecutor Kujtim Munishi”, is said in a response to the IKD.

The IKD, due to random sensitivity, investigative evidence and presentation, requires that investigations in this case be conducted by an independent team of EULEX prosecutors, made up of Americans, Britons and Germans, as only in this way will the public ensure that the ongoing investigation is independent, impartial and professional.

“also, all the documents investigated and presented, on which suspicion of manipulation was cast, The IKD wants to be sent to expertise in countries like the US, Great Britain or Germany, to ensure certain results, which create complete credibility of public confidence in allegations raised about counterfeiting the UN chief state prosecutor Alexander Lumezi's jurisdictional examination, in contrast, any results that may reveal the investigation process, which is being led by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, as the subordinate of chief Lumezi, will not be reliable for the public, which also has the lowest credibility in the justice system of<1).

The IKD has sent in some more evidence and evidence provided in research:

Kosovo's Institute for Justice (IKD) through the “Justice Trust” in co-operation with Kohavision are continuing research on the exam of Alexander Lumez's jurisdiction, now chief state prosecutor. The facts and dilemmas the prosecution must remove through independent, impartial and professional investigation to convince the public of the outcome.

• Research findings prove that Alexander Lumez's file as a whole is manipulated and this is argued through research of these original relevant documents:

1. Personal record of intern Alexander Lumez;

2. Book of test submissions;

3. Basic data on testing;

4. Testing certificate does not match the basic file;

• The findings in all these original documents in the Mother's Book on Testing prove that:

1. Alexander Lumez has not presented the jurisdictional exam in the original exam presentation book, which exists in the Archive of Kosovo;

1.1. Alexander Lumez in the original book of testing finds only on the white mortar in which Zymer Krasniqi was originally written; So the exam was submitted by Zymer Krasniqi and that is based on all documents of the personal file and on Krasniqi's own testimony.

2. The basic file does not belong to Alexander Lumez;

2.1. Alexander Lumez figures in the basic file only on the white mortar in which Zymer Krasniqi was originally written; So the basic file belongs to Zymer Krasniqi, and that is based on all documents of the personal file and on Krasniqi's own testimony.

2.2. The proverbial process on giving a jurisdictional exam, which figures inside the basic file belongs to Alexander Lumez. Zymer Krasniqi has no processor at all in the basic file.

2.3. Alexander Lumez's proverbial process is in complete opposition to the law, including the decline in exams and the number of subjects that have been retested in writing.

3. The motherbook on registering candidates who have given the jurisdiction exam exists in the original Justice Ministry. In this book, he figures Alexander Lumez in Cyrillic in the 30nd. Alexander Lumez passed the exam on April 25, 1991, on this record. This book does not provide Zymer Krasniqi, who figures in the exam presentation register and the basic file.

4. The certificate on handing the jurisdictional exam presented by Alexander Lumez dates April 25th 1991, as the date he completed the jurisdictional exam. But in the process of the base file, writes that Alexander Lumez passed the exam on April 26, 1991. According to this, it turns out that the certificate was issued one day before he passed the jurisdictional exam.

5. The signing on this certificate has confirmed Djordje Akek through a not-attended confirmation in Belgrade, Serbia at the request of Alexander Lumez. This Axis confirmation serves only as evidence of the authenticity of the signing found in the Lumez certificate. According to the statement issued at the request of Alexander Ljumez, Djordje Aksik declares with full responsibility that “Certificate for passing the Judicature exam 02.152-1210790 of the 06.05.1991, in which he wrote that Alexander Lumez from Pristina, d. 25.04.1991 passed the Judicature exam, I signed it”.

• Living documents of 2000, which were held by members of the Jury Consultative Commission who were responsible for the assessment of candidates for judges and prosecutors in 1999 and 2000 at the time of UNMIK.

1. UNMIK had established a local majority commission in 1999/2000, along with international representatives for recruiting judges and prosecutors immediately after the war ended in Kosovo.

2. This Commission owns the processions, which testify to the methodology of how the data on candidates who had competed for these positions was recorded.

3. Procesverbal proves that candidate Alexander Lumez did not have the jurisdictional exam declared in 2000 and was therefore excluded from his appointment as a judge.

4. The 2000 prosecution testifies that then, outside of this Commission's proposals, names had been proposed to be appointed as judges and prosecutors, contrary to the competition criteria, candidates, who have not yet had their juristia exam completed, respectively.

5. The chairman and members of this commission, according to the report, had strongly rejected interventions in the candidate lists, stressing that UNMIK administrator. Bernard Kouchner, they've been sent names to candidates who haven't had a jurisdictional exam.

6. Kouchner had appointed 31 judges and prosecutors, who were not nominated by the Jury Consultative Commission, where candidates among them had not had to take the jurisdictional exam.

• Living Witnesses of 2000 who were members of the Jury Consultative Commission, who were responsible for the assessment of candidates for judges and prosecutors in 1999 and 2000 at the time of UNMIK.

1. Riza Smaka's former chairman of this Commission, based on the work of this Commission, which had recorded the candidate records and interviewed them in 1999/2000, publicly proves that Alexander Lumez did not have the jurisdictional exam. Smaka has testified that Lumez has argued to them for lack of jurisdictional exam with the fact that there has been no organisation of this exam during the time of Serbia's regime over Kosovo in the 1990s.

2. Adil Fetah, a former member of this Commission who had recorded the candidates' records and interviewed them in 1999/2000, publicly proves that Alexander Lumez did not have the jurisdictional exam. Fetah has testified that he personally kept the notes and asked Lumez, who has declared that he does not have the jurisdictional exam. He has offered the report prepared in 2000 for his public testimony.

3. Ragip Halili, a former member of this Commission, proves that there are processes in which he and other members of the Commission had reacted sharply to those who had added to the candidate list, who had not had the jurisdictional exam.

4. Bajram Krasniqi, a former member of this Commission, testifies that there are processes in which he and the other members of the Commission had reacted sharply to those who had added to the candidate lists, who had not had the jurisdictional exam.

• Investigations into allegations of counterfeiting the law-test file are conducted by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, subordinate to chief prosecutor Alexander Lumez.

1. Investigations into allegations of counterfeiting the law test file are conducted by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, subordinate to Chief Prosecutor Alexander Lumezi, who has recently managed to work within the framework of the State Chief Prosecutor's Office and become chief of the Randa Crime Department at Pristina's Constitutional Prosecutor.

2. Cameron Munishi, just two and a half years after becoming part of the Kosovo Prosecutorial System, has managed to be transferred from the office of Gnjilane's prosecutor to the chief state prosecutor, Alexander Lumez. The latter, through the decision signed on April 28, 2015, had delegated to Cameron Munishi, the authority of the chief state prosecutor's office. Under the decision, besides the competencies Munich would have as Gjilan's prosecutor, he would also exercise other functions that enter within the state chief prosecutor's office, including the drafting of reports and other written documents. Prosecutor Munich had performed other duties and responsibilities directly under the supervision of Chief Prosecutor Lumez. Prosecutor Munishi is currently chief of Pristina's Department of Criminals at the Founding Prosecutor.

3. Munich is investigating the case, under EULEX representatives' monitoring. Foreign embassies are not involved in monitoring this case.

4. Munich is also the prosecutor of the case, in which Chief Prosecutor Lumez had been stolen from his home.

• Prejudices and interventions in the process of investigation by politics, the government and the prosecutorial system itself.

1. Justice Minister Abelard Tahiri has nominated Alexander Lumez for chairman of the Commission for Providing the Jurisprudence Test. Throughout the history of this commission, it finds that the chairman of the Commission has been the chairman of the Supreme Court of Kosovo. With the establishment of debate over suspicions of counterfeiting Alexander Lumez's jurisdictional exam, Minister Tahiri has made several statements, prejudging prosecution investigations that they will end in a short time. Tahiri has said he has also called for involvement of internationals “and that he hopes this case will end within this week with a clear and credit-based investigation”. This represents policy and executive interventions on the prosecutorial system and investigations that are under way in this case. The minister has no competencies to have any information and responsibility in the ongoing investigative processes. Powers are divided and should be respected precisely. The fact that the minister speaks of time terms with competence presents clear policy interventions in investigations.

2. Minister Tahiri's public statements on what are they based?

3. Does it mean that Minister Tahiri is being informed by the Prosecutor or Police about the course of investigations?

4. Kosovo's Prosecutorial Council has in all prejudged any allegations raised over the forged file of Alexander Lumez's jurisdictional exam. According to the Council, Lumez has passed all the appointment filters and also verification in 2009-2010 by the Independent Judicial and Prosecutorial Commission. The facts presented by the Council have assessed them as attempts to undermine the image of the chief state prosecutor and the prosecutor's system, so they have asked those who have raised those doubts, that the same toė attract publicly.

5. The Kosovo Prosecutors' Association has in all prejudged claims filed the Alexander Lumezi jurisdictional exam. The association has praised research as a tendency to fade and repel the work of state prosecutors, calling research prepared and fabricated. The association has asked local and international institutions to stand up for the State Prosecutor, offering full support to the chief state prosecutor in his successful work.

• Expectations from the investigation process to prove suspicions of counterfeiting Alexander Lumez's law enforcement file. The IKD estimates that without answer to these questions any results of the investigation by chief prosecutor Lumezi's subordinate will not be an independent, impartial and professional investigation.

1. Why does Lumez's personal record not provide court proof of one year's practical work, which serves to present the law test?

2. Why, in Lumez's file, is there no such act that he is allowed to undergo a test of jurisdiction?

3. How is it that Alexander Lumez will present a law test without doing a year's work?

4. How is it that in the original book of testing the jurisdiction doesn't work out Lumez?

5. Why does Lumez figure out the white mortar on Zymer Krasniqi's name?

6. Why doesn't Lumez figure out the original basic file?

7. Why does Lumez figure out in the basic file on white mortar on Zymer Krasniqi's name?

8. Why aren't Lumez' written testing processes inside the base file?

9. Why is all the content of the chip on giving a lawyer's test completely contrary to the law?

10. How is it legally possible that Alexander Lumez will remain in writing on two basic, criminal and civil exams?

11. If he has remained on a civil and criminal writing exam (even though legally and according to former Committee for Jurisprudence Secretary Mr. Sahit Shala, this is not possible, then why did he enter civil and economical tests?

Twelve. What's left of the record of entering the exam by oral criminal rights?

13. How is it that the certificate on giving a jurisdictional exam by Alexander Lumrezi is issued on April 25, 1991, while in the chip writes he has completed the exam on April 26, 1991?

14. How can the certificate be issued one day before entering and completing the exam?

15. Has the certificate been met in accordance with legal procedures?

16. How come former District Secretary for Judicature and Administration Djordje Akek, who signed the certificate, is part of the Commission who has asked Alexander Lumez?

17. How can the former District Secretary for Judicature and Administration, Djordje Akek, appoint himself to the Commission, when such is not allowed by law?

18. How can the Commission be formed by the Republican Secretary of Judicature and Administration in 1990 and signed by Joerge Aksic a year later?

Nineteen. Has the prosecution secured the decrees of the Republic of Serbia, including this contestor, found in the Archive of the Ministry of Justice of Serbia, not in Kosovo, to prove claims raised for counterfeiting?

20. Certificates have been issued legally by 1990 for Albanian in Albanian, for Serbs in Serbian languages with Latin alphabets, while after the review of Kosovo's autonomy, Serbian writing and alphabet in Cyrillic have been implemented. Officials who have worked at the time say certificates have not been issued in two languages -- Serbian and Albanian. Thus, neither during the period of autonomy nor after its review after 1990 was issued. How is it that the Lumez certificate was issued in two languages?

21. Why is this case being investigated by Prosecutor Munich and investigative officers of financial crimes?

22. Why is this case not handled by the special unit concerning the investigation of forged documents in the Kosovo Police?

23. Has the grafological expertise of documents that are manipulated, painted with lily, on which the name Alexander Lumez is written?

24. To increase public confidence in this investigation process, should such an independent, impartial and professional graphological expertise be made abroad, such as in the United States, Great Britain or Germany?

25. The graphological execution of the certificate made public by Chief Prosecutor Alexander Lumez himself is the necessary measure to confirm the age of paper and writing on it (to prove whether it was written in 1991 or 2000 or in any other year)?

26. Has Lumez's certificate been compared to the uncontained certificates of candidates who took the test in 1991?

27. Are the other certificates of the River's format, design, alphabet and other details similar to the Lumez certificate?

28. This expertise would clear up many of the circumstances of the allegations raised, based on the certificate presented by Chief Prosecutor Lumezi himself and the basic file on the passing of the jurisdictional exam, which is found in the Kosovo Archives.

29. The expert would confirm at least three important aspects of non-compliance.

a. First, it has to do with re-try and counter-information concerning the subjects in which the candidate entered the reproject on April 26, 1991?

b. Second, it has to do with the date of the jury exam, which according to the certificate published by Lumez himself is April 25, 1991, and not a day later than that date?

c. Third, it has to do with the decision to allow Alexander Lumez to enter the exam. According to evidence received in Belgrade, the act was issued by former District Secretary for Judicature and Administration Djordje Aksic. While, in the basic file, it is said that the act belongs to the Secretary of the Republic of Serbia, it is said, respectively: the “Commission founded with the Constitution of Secretary Republic for Judicature and Administration No. 152-1568/90-12 of the 30th. X1990” The investigator must prove that.

Thirty. Have UNMIK documents of the Juryn Consultative Commission and former Special Representative of the Secretary General been provided, Mr. Bernard Kouchner for 1999/2000, to see Alexander Lumez's candidacy and file?

31. Are the processes offered by members of the Jury Consultative Commission true, in which it writes that Alexander Lumez when competing for judges and prosecutors did not have the jurisdictional exam?

32. Have UNMIK documents, which exist according to members of the Jurisdic Consultative Commission, been provided and testify that 31 candidates in 2000 were appointed as judges and prosecutors, without the Commission's proposal even without having a jurisdictional exam?

33. Have living witnesses, who have stated publicly that the processes of 2000, under which Alexander Lumez did not have the jurisprudence exam, are correct (former witnesses to the Riza Smaka Commission and three members Adil Fetah, Shaban Kajtazi and Bajram Krasniqi)?

34. Why is the Constitutional Prosecutor taken into Pristina?

35. Why is Alexander Lumez's closest subordinate, prosecutor Cameron Munich, assigned in this case?

36. Why has this case not been handled by the Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Kosovo, since he is suspected of forging his diploma for the State Chief Prosecutor's jurisdictional exam?

37. Why in this case to ensure independence of investigations, impartiality and professionalism is not involved in the direct EULEX investigation?