Thaci's defence challenges special court law: Requests permission to appeal the decision

The appeal certificate has been requested for eight (8) cases, as stated on the letter published on the court's official page, reports “Justice Vought”.

One of the first issues is that if the pre-trial conclusion, that the mandate of the Specialised Chambers and the SPS has not expired, is undermined by his failure to consider or offer sufficient reasoning about the legislative goal of the Parliament; proposed constitutional amendments proposed number 26, Article 162 (14) that is applicable to the minimum time mandate; and that the submission of sovereignty under the 20th Constitution should not be indefinitely, uncertain and unilateral.

The second question is that if the prosecutor of the preliminary procedure failed to conclude that the issue of the provisional mandate of the Specialised Chambers was “set up by the SCCC” in the absence of any sufficient reasoning, and in a noncontinent manner with Net 113 (7) and 144 ( 3) of the Constitution, which the pre-procedration judge failed to take into account in full.

“In question whether the SPS investigation had a legal or constitutional basis, if the trial judge erred on the wrong basis of his findings if Article 159 (1) KPRK's was explicitly incorporated in the Specialised Chambers Law, instead of being properly guided by the issue of KPPC implementation when the Law and Rules of Specialised Chambers are silent, and ignoring the defense statements for exchanging letters”, it is said to be the third issue.

On the other hand, it is said that the case is whether the judge of the preliminary procedure erred simply by rejecting the defense statements of why the Specialised Chambers Law creates an extraordinary “gist” on the basis of a previous conclusion that the Specialised Chambers were founded by law, failing to address the substance of defence arguments.

If the Pre-Procedure Procedure Judge erred by failing to engage or offer sufficient reasoning about issues raised by defence concerning Mr. Thaci to be judged by an independent and impartial court, wrongly relying on the unintelligent jurisdiction of the GEDNJ, and not fully considering whether the “taken in a quantum manner, these characteristics lead to the inevitable conclusion that the structured Special Chambers fail to meet Article 6 (1) of the KEDNJ -” requirements, it is said to be the other issue.

On the other hand, as the case raised is that if it was open to a reasonable judge of the preliminary procedure to find that the demand for independence and impartiality does not function to limit intervention with the Special Prosecutor, especially given that it conflicts with Article 109 (1) and (2) the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the pre-end case is related to the right to be tried within a reasonable deadline, that if the pre-procedure judge failed to conclude that the corresponding period began only November 17th, 2019, adopting an incorrect interpretation of the respective ECHR law.

“If the Pre-Procedure Procedure Judge has erred in the assessment of Thaci's presumption of the innocence in connection with Marty's own report, thus failing to engage in defence statements that the violation flows from the specialised Chambers that are defined in connection with a report condemning the accused”, the latest case is said.

Otherwise, in their first appearances on November 9th, Hashim Thaci's Jakup Krasniqi has pleaded innocent to the charges they are being charged with.

Wessel has been declared in his presentation on November 10th, as has Selimi on November 11th.

The incident against Hashim Thaci, Kadri Veselin, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi is confirmed on October 26, 2020.

According to the prosecution, at least between March 1998 and September 1999, Hashim Thaci, Kadri Veselini, Rexhep Selimi, Jakup Krasniqi and other members of the joint criminal enterprise had the common goal of securing and exercising control over all of Kosovo through methods involving intimidation, mistreatment, violence and the unlawful elimination of those considered opponents.

“Set up these opponents included persons who were, or who were considered to have been: (a) collaborators or forces, officials or state institutions of RFJ, or who (b) otherwise did not support the purposes or methods of the KLA and later QPK, among whom persons linked to the LDK and Serbs, Roma and persons of other nationalities (joinly, non-combatorsors). This common goal included crimes of persecution, imprisonment, arrest and arbitrary or illegal arrest, other inhumane acts, cruel treatment, torture, murder and forced disappearance of persons”, the indictment said.

In addition, Azem Syla, Lahi Brahimaj, Fatmir Limaj, Sylejman Selimi, Rrustem Mustafa, Shukri Buja, Latif Gashi and Sabit Geci are also mentioned.

According to the indictment, the accused along with other KLA leaders contributed to achieving the common goal.

“As an alternative, some or all of these individuals were not members of the joint criminal enterprise, but were used by members of the joint criminal enterprise to commit crimes for the realisation of the common goal (with members of the NKP, jointly members and NKP instruments)”, says the accusation act.