The appeal partially approves Hysni Gucatit and Nasim Haradinaj motions, demanded by SPS corrected version of the indictment

By means of the decision, the College of Appeals made up of Michèle Picard, Emilia Gatti and Kai Amboska, has ordered the panel responsible for leading the Special Prosecutor's Office (ZPS) to submit a correct version of the indictment in light of the following instructions:

“a) Further details about the identity of co-chairees and collaborators (at least, according to group, category or belonging, and, when available, by name) should be included in the Actakusis in accordance with the findings of the Court of Appeals panel under 1-3 points; b) further views regarding the categories of people urged and helped should be included in paragraphs 41, 43, 44, 45 and 46 of Aktakuza in line with the findings of the Court of Appeals under 1-3; points 13; c)formation “and / or” in paragraphs 16, 26, 28, 30, 39 and 46 of Aktakuza must be changed in accordance with the findings of the Appeals Court panel under point 4; d) the word “including” should be removed from the 12 - 21 and 27 of Aktakuza paragraphs and the formulation of these paragraphs should be revised in line with the findings of the Appel Court panel under the 5“, said at the college decision.

Meanwhile, this Appeals College has rejected the rest of the complaints.

The defense of the accused had demanded that Appeals approve their complaints, reports “The Justice Vow”

Otherwise, in the decision of preliminary judge Nicolas Guillou, whose application for appeal had been approved, the defence was said to have demanded that the appeal of the decision be made on the following issues, referred to as five cases.

The first point was that if the judge of the preliminary procedure was wrong, when he found that the confirmed indictment was not flawed in the absence of other data for the identity of the co-chairees, given the request to give in the indictment as much detail as possible about the identities of any alleged associate.

The second point was whether the judge of the preliminary procedure was wrong when he found that the confirmed indictment was not flawed in lack of other data on the identity of accomplices, given the request to file as much detail as possible about the identity of any alleged accomplice.

On the other hand, the defense claimed the third point, which says: “if the preliminary judge erred in finding that the confirmed indictment was not flawed in the absence of any other data on the identity of assisted or motivated persons, given the request to secure in the indictment as much detail as possible about the identity of any person assisted or promoted”.

Meanwhile, the fourth point of the complaint said: “if the judge of the preliminary procedure was mistaken in finding that there was no defect in the indictment confirmed to use the “and dealt with the” formula to resort to alternative reference to the accused's claim, unnamed co-chairees or unnamed associates, when it is attributed to allegedly taken actions, in view of a request that should not be used by formulas that create uncertainty about the claim of responsibility of the accused<3>

And the last point, the fifth point claimed: “if the confirmed indictment is flawed in what the unknown “ “action claims to be “could have occurred near “known “actions allegedly took place, given the request that statements open to the facts supporting the accusations are not allowed unless they are extremely necessary, which has not been stated<7>

The ruling stated that the pre-procedure judge finds that five cases would significantly affect the right and quick development of procedures, and that the immediate solution from the Court of Appeals to them could advance the procedures materially.