<x0) Lawyers object to Prosecutor's timing of extracting documents

The prosecution and the defence have clashed over the deadline for handing over documents issued by the Prosecutor over the trial process against Thaci, Veselin, Krasniqi and Selimi.

*A part transliterated from the status hearings in The Hague, Periscopi notes.

Prosecutor:  The prosecution expects to count to 50 witnesses.Morning, 1500 material evidence in court. As far as time is concerned, the prosecution has considered handing over this material until May 31st, 2021. What can't actually be done is identify which material will be extracted at any time. We have 1822 voices. 153 witnesses as to the deadline for extraction, there is no difference between the Prosecutor and the Defense. It is a huge volume of material and logistics factors and time - dependent practice.

David Hooper, Thaci's lawyer:  If they say they can do it by the end of May, why don't they?

I don't have a lot of answers to today's issues, but what I'm going to say is this, extracting documentation is seen as moving investigations, not so, because we have a lot of documents we have to deal with, we have to analyze to come up with the investigation and we don't have to have this idea that when the information is released you can start immediately on the defence side with the investigation, that's not the case.

Ben Emmerson, Kadri Wessel lawyer:  I am surprised and the disappointments the prosecution demands that the anger should conduct detailed investigations in order to warrant the deadline for submitting documents.

It is not the prosecution's proper behavior to extract materials as undesirable, to reduce the possibility of protection to investigate. The prosecution says I'm giving it May 31st of next year as a deadline, then it says that if the defence takes 18 months to conduct its investigation then we can move later. But with this statement I see as something extraordinary, the prosecution must undoubtedly stick to the deadline it has set, and then we should have a reasonable and appropriate period for our investigation after we have been informed of the details of the case against us.

I don't know why the Prosecutor is reluctant to protect a fair act. What makes the prosecution unable to access a fair approach?

Your Honor, I want to make it clear that we understand that the prosecution has a considerable material to process and we understand the duties for extracting documentation are many that take their time, but just as long as it is 30 days long, I don't know if they're in the same mind of defence colleagues but we're talking about issues of days, and the question is that when the documentation is released it is in a form that we can start working. So the defense should not be placed in that position to appear before the judge from time to time. It's the prosecution who does the editing as a first step, as a first level and we shouldn't be in trouble because if we don't get the documentation in the right format, it would be hard for us.

So it's up to the prosecution to carry out the part of realisation and extraction in information and give a kind of guidance for the process afterwards. Why is the prosecution trying to delay the defence preparation process so much.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, I'm not going to add to my statement. /PERISCOP/