Love in times of prejudice: Eulex judge has his colleagues on the news about Rusty Drenica (Dok)

According to Gashi, EULEX has never agreed to have him testify in the related court, and the local judges of the Supreme Court of Kosovo have never done the same.

Thus, through this status, he has published Simmons' statement, reports Indexline.

This is his status:

Day 141

We are publishing the testimony of EULEX Justice Chairman Mr. Malcolm Simmons, who during the Drenica case trial has been willing to testify to deliberate irregularities.

His statement is self-explanatory.

EULEX has never agreed to have him testify in the Court regarding these, and the local judges of the Supreme Court of Kosovo have never done the same.

Who's manipulating and who's being called in the rumors.!

This document would explain.

Malcolm Simmons shows the following:

1. From 2014 to 2017, I was the president of EULEX Judges.
2. In May 2014, I was the High Judge of the EULEX Mobile Unit and responsible for appointing EULEX judges of the mobile unit in subjects that were in EULEX jurisdiction and under the competencies of the Mobile Unit. Judge Anna Adamska was judge at Mobile Unit.
3. In May 2014, I received complaints from several EULEX judges in the Mobile Unit about the selection of Judge Adamska in the course of indictees Sylejman Selimi etc., known as Drenica. It was the misconception that I had named Judge Adamska on that subject. In fact, it had been a reasonable assumption in view of my having the responsibility to appoint matter for the judges of the Mobile Union.
4. Later, when I spoke to Judge Adamska, she confirmed that she was assigned to the Drenica case. I've asked her for a copy of her selection decision. That decision was signed by Judge Gerrit-Mark Springer, the former interim chairman of the EULEX Judges Assembly.
5. I talked to Judge Springer who told me he named Judge Adamska in the Drenica case at the request of Judge Darius Sielicki. He said that he thinks I was aware of this request and that I approved the request. I told him I wasn't aware of that.
6. Then, I spoke with Judge Selicki. He told me he really asked Judge Springer to name Judge Adamska. He told me it was about love (was about) Judge Adamska and that her presence in this class would give him an opportunity to spend more time with her and that her assignment to this subject would also give her valuable experience in judging war crimes.
7. The appointment of Judge Adamska on the court's court of the case was not in accordance with the distribution system with lots (random cases of selection system). Moreover, it was completely inappropriate that the chief of the court in this case should choose another member of the panel- and certainly not someone with whom it is about love.
8. I informed Judge Springer that Judge Adamska's appointment was inappropriate. I've invited him to cancel his decision and appoint a judge in accordance with the distribution system of lots. He has refused to say that the mission's management was “pressed” with the composition of the panel.
9. In taking up the role of EULEX Chairman of Judges in 2014, I raised this issue with the mission's top management, including Mission Deputy Chairman, Chief of Staff and Special Adviser of the Mission Head. Then I raised the case with Mission Head Gabrielle Meucci.
10. The mission refused to support my request to investigate how Judge Adamska was elected on that occasion. In fact, the Head of Mission and his deputy chairman joked about how Sielicki and Adamska are being on the panel will provide condemnation.
11. Comments made by the chairman of the Judicial Chamber during the trial for more question his objectivity and impartiality. At the beginning of the trial, the chairman of the ICH Judicial Chamber has referred to the defendants as “animals” and that Albanians are “inbred”) originated by incest; that multiply within the type. He said that “if I punish the defendants I can take jobs anywhere in Europe. ”
12. In 2017, I was contacted by the case of Drenica's defense attorney. Sylejman Selimi's defence lawyers, who asked me to give a statement on the way the panel was composed. I informed the Head of the Mission of my readiness to make a statement. Then I was contacted by the head of the EULEX Legal Department, which tried to debate me to make a statement. The head of the Legal Department told me that if I give the Head's statement without proper authorization to the Mission, I can submit to disciplinary measures. She asked me if I was aware of the potential damage to the mission's reputation.
13. Over the next few months I received various communiqués from defence lawyers in the case of Drenica. Sylejman Selimi's defence lawyers via EULEX officials' email regarding my potential status as witnesses. I conveyed these emails to EULEX Court of the Supreme Court judges who will decide according to attorneys' complaints in both Drenica cases. A Justice E HASEX Who would decide on the complaints of lawyers has asked me if I would give a written summary of my testimony. And I did.
14. I was then surprised to find myself subject to disciplinary measures. I was criticised on charges of conveying e-mails from defence lawyers to EULEX judges. I claimed I tried to pressure EULEX judges to hear my testimony. That wasn't right. I have simply followed emails received from defence lawyers and answered the requirements or questions of EULEX Judges. It was clear that the beginning of the disciplinary procedure was meant to scare me so I could keep quiet, and damage my credibility.
15. My only interest in the whole matter was to see justice in the land.
16. I'm willing to testify before the court that decides on this complaint. There are other materials I will address before the court.

The contents of this statement are true according to my knowledge and beliefs.

Date 10 smiling 2018

Malcolm Simmons.