Thaci's defence motion rejected for unique investigative opportunities for eight diplomats

The judge of the preliminary procedure, Nicolas Guillou, has made the decision by which he has rejected Hashim Thaci's defence motion, by which he had sought investigative opportunities for international witnesses, after praising that their testimony is important to the case.

Steve Bennett, Wesley Clark, Jock Dovey, Michael Durkee, Daan W. Everts, Bernard Kouchner, William Walker, and another diplomat whose name has been edited are witnesses for whom the protection of former President Thaci sought unique investigative opportunities.

At first, it says the preliminary judge remembers that the 99 rule of rules predicts the investigation should present a unique opportunity because evidence may not be available later in court.

In line with that, it is said that the legal test under the provision consists of the availability of an investigative act that presents a unique opportunity to provide evidence that may not be available later in court.

The decision says that the preliminary judge notes that an assessment of whether the evidence may later be available at trial” is one that is carried out case by case and involves considering such factors as, among other things, the passage of time, health or physical state of a witness, temporary access to the existential item or pressure exercised on a witness.

In addition to the above-mentioned legal test, the ruling says the preliminary judge is of the opinion that the 99 rule of rules implies that the required investigative act should be important for preparing the issue that requires. Finally, measures taken in accordance with rules 99 and 100 of rules do not later prevent the parties from seeking admission into the judgment of previous written statements or transcripts in accordance with rules of 153 to 155 of the rules.

In terms of defence arguments Thaci regarding the Witnesses (<x1) advanced age” and “different health rates”), the preliminary judge notes that the Witnesses are between 77 and 87 years old. However, nothing in the motion or addition indicates that the Witnesses ' health condition now is a serious concern that would ensure the immediate preservation of their evidence. Rather, the preliminary judge notes that Protection Thaci acknowledges that the Witnesses ' poor or poor health «is not currently a factor. in this case”. As Thaci has admitted, only age is an insufficient reason to believe that the evidence of a witness can become elusive”, the verdict says.

Regarding the projected length of time before the defence issue begins, the preliminary judge reportedly remembers that he will broadcast the case on a judicial panel by the end of 2022.

This means that the court, in each case, will be tasked with procedures in this case long before the First Measure envisioned by the Thaci Defense in February 2023 is actually implemented, if the first measure is given. Therefore, in view of the immediate transmission of the case to the court and the future appointment of a judicial panel, the preliminary judge feels that the assessment of the importance, need, and appointment of witnesses is a matter that is best decided by the judicial panel that would be assigned to hear the matter”, is further stated in this decision.

In this way, the preliminary judge finds that Defence Thaci has not backed its request for a unique investigation opportunity and refuses the request for the First Mass.

That being said, this decision is without prejudice to any future presentation of a Judiciary panel in charge of the modalities, time and chronology of Witness witnessing. Legal evidence under the 100 rule of regulations for obtaining a deposit for use in court is whether “has a reason to believe that evidence of the possible witness can otherwise become unposed”, the decision says.

For the reasons outlined above, the decision says that the preliminary judge is not convinced that advanced age and the different degree of witness health and the projected length of time before the issue of protection is made up, at this stage, a reason to believe that evidence of witnesses may otherwise become elusive within the understanding of the 100 rule rules.

Thus, the preliminary judge opposes the request for alternative measures. The preliminary judge recalls that Thaci's defense is not exempt from making presentations regarding the Witnesses in the appropriate judicial panel if it chooses.

Paralysically, the ruling reportedly says that as regards the SPS argument that the extension of the motion should be refused after being submitted out of time, the preliminary Judge recalls that he ordered defence teams to submit any requests justifying the need for any investigation opportunity to implement the 99 rule order by October 28th, 2022. The preliminary judge reportedly notes that Thaci's defence submitted the addition on November 11th, 2022, without any request to change the timetable.

“Also, the preliminary judge also notes that Thaci's Protection (i) announced its intention to demand measures in the application of the 100 rule rules regarding nine individuals since presenting its announcement on October 7, 2022;ei) explained that, in the date of the presentation of the motion, “for reasons beyond his control” it was only able to apply for measures concerning only eight witnesses, and (i) explained that, at the time of the additional presentation. had just received authorization from the relevant authorities, he was now able to apply for the measures for this ninth witness, which he had originally referred to in announcement”, says in this decision.

Furthermore, the SPS is said to be not biased given that it was (i) in announcing Thaci's goal of looking for measures for nine witnesses; and (ii) able to fully respond to the extension.

In this way, the first court judge reportedly opposes SPS's cashiers in this regard. And that he accepts late submission.

Otherwise, on October 28, 2022, Thaci's defence filed a motion justifying the need for the required measures for eight witnesses in the context of a unique investigative opportunity. On November 10, 2022, the Specialised Prosecutor's Office responded to the motion.

On November 11th, 2022, Thaci's defence presented an addition to the motion, justifying the need for measures required for a ninth witness.

On November 15th 2022, Thaci's defence responded to the SPS's response. On the same day, that on November 15, 2022, the preliminary judge hung the deadline for (i) Z The SP to respond to the amendment of the motion; and (ii) Thaci's protection to respond to the SPS's response to additional motion. On November 18, 2022, it becomes known that the ZPS responded. On November 23, 2022, Thaci's defence was retorted.

The Specialised Prosecutor's Office, on September 30th, has handed over the confirmed amended indictment against Hashim Thaci, Kadri Veselin, Jakup Krasniqi and Rexhep Selimi, which consists of ten points of charges, where they are charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. That, after the judge had partially approved Hashim Thaci's defence motion, submitted to the amended indictment in the case where he and Kadri Veselin, Jakup Krasniqi and Rexhep Selimi are being charged with war crimes, and the SPS was ordered to make changes to the amended indictment.

In this indictment, it is said that through actions and inactions described above, Hashim Thaci, Kadri Veselini, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi, have conducted through their participation in a joint criminal enterprise and/or have assisted and promoted crimes charged in this indictment.

According to the prosecution, in addition to this or alternative, Hashim Thaci, Kadri Veselini, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi are responsible for crimes committed by their subordinates.

At that point, the indictment says Thaci, Veselin, Selimi and Krasniqi either knew or had reason to know that the crimes charged in this indictment were ready to be committed or committed by their subordinates and had not taken necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such crimes or punish its authors.

“Hashim Thaci, Kadri Veselini, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi individually criminalised for: point 1 persecution on political and/or ethnic grounds, crime against humanity, punishable according to Article 13 (1) (h), 16 (1) (a) and 16 (1) of the Law; Points 2: imprisonment, crime against humanity, punishable according to articles 13 (1) (e), 16 (1) (a) and 16 (1) (1) of the Law; point 3 unlawful or arbitrary detention, war crime, punishable according to articles 14 (1) (c), 16 (1) (a) (a) and 16 (1) (1) (c) of the Law”, is said in indictment by the prosecution.

At point 4, they are charged with other inhumane acts, crime against mankind, punishable according to articles 13 (1) (i), 16 (1) (a) and 16 (1) (c) of the Law, and 5 at 5 for cruel treatment, war crime, punishable according to articles 14 (1) (c) (i), 16 (1) (a) and 16 (1) (1) (c) of the Law.

“Pica 6: torture, crime against humanity, punishable according to articles 13 (1) (f), 16 (1) and 16 (1) law; Points 7: torture, war crime, punishable according to articles 14 (1) (c) (i), 16 (1) (a) and 16 (1) (c) of the Law; Point 8: : murder, crime against humanity, punishable according to articles 13 (1) (a), 16 (1) (a) and 16 (1) (c) of the Law; Point 9: murder, war crime, punishable according to articles 14 (1) (c) (i), 16 (1) (a) and 16 (1) (c) of the Law; Points 10: Forced disappearance of persons, crime against humanity, punishable according to articles 13 (1) (i), 16 (1) (1) (a) and 16 (1) (c) of the Law”, says the indictment.

Otherwise, the preliminary judge, on 29 September, approved the Special Prosecutor's request to withdraw criminal claims on at least one victim in the Ferizaj municipality.

On April 29th, the Specialised Prosecutor's Office had handed over a amended indictment to Hashim Thaci, Kadri Veselin, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi.

The prosecution is claiming that the four defendants have committed war crimes even in Gjilan, Budakov and Semtish.

In the published annex concerning crimes allegedly taking place in Semetitish and Budakova, the prosecution has listed war crimes such as arrest and unlawful or arbitrary detention, cruel or inhuman treatment, torture, murder. Meanwhile, as crimes against humanity, he has listed imprisonment, other inhuman acts, torture, murder, the disappearance of people by force and persecution.

And for crimes claiming to take place in Gjilan, as war crimes, he has listed the arrest and illegal or arbitrary ban, cruel or inhuman treatment, torture and murder. While, as crimes against humanity, it has listed imprisonment, other inhumane acts, torture, murder, and persecution.

On November 9th 2020, in their first appearances, Hashim Thaci's Jakup Krasniqi has been declared innocent of the charges placed on them.

Wessel has been declared 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 the achievement of 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)”, the accusation is said.