Chairman of Appeal: Judges Prosecutors, Compromise in Corruption Cases

In the week's interview, Shala spoke of the table tennis game between the prosecution and the court as a tendency to justify the failure of the justice system in the fight against corruption. Shala has also spoken of a lack of consistency in convictions, writes Koha Ditore today.

It has acknowledged that Kosovo's judiciary more condemns an ordiner thief than a public official for millions' corruption. For its mild penalties on corruption cases, Shala has declared it to be “compromis” between judges and prosecutors. According to Shala, this is due to the nonprofessionalism of those dealing with high profile prosecution and judgment.

KD: The judicial system has been constantly criticised for lack of results. How do you assess the judicial system?

Shala: I consider that we have a judicial system of young age. A new judiciary has its advantages as well as its faults. This, because a judge needs to have an experience in his work, and that his experience automatically points to the outcome. Without an experience, there is no result.

KD: How satisfied are you with those decisions?

ShalaOn average, we are satisfied. We are not satisfied with the decisions of the Court of Appeals as well as with the Constitutional Court, but often we are not satisfied even with the Supreme Court's decisions because we do not have that satisfying quality throughout the judicial system. That's a personal thought.

KD: What are these decisions?

ShalaDepending on judges. There are extremely well-reasoned decisions, but there are some decisions that are unfortunately not well justified.