Access to confidential material in the case of Mustafa: Selimi's defence request rejected, Thaci's Krasniqi

That request of Selimi's defence had been joined by Hashim Thaci's Jakup Krasniqi's defence protection, reports “Justice Vow”.

The court's ruling says that under rule 81 (1) and (2) procedure and testing regulation in front of Kosovo Specialised Chambers (Rules), Selim's defence has sought access to confidential materials from procedures at KSC-BC-2020-05 (Rastti 05), without prejudging authorised measures at “Rastin 05” as well as KSC-BC-2020-06 (Rast 06), for the duration of both procedures.

This is said to have been included: (i) all confidential transcripts of closed session evidence; (ii) all transcripts of closed sessions; (ii) all confidential evidence; and (iv) all confidential files, parachutes, and panel decisions.

“The Guardian Selimi states that since the oversumption between case 05 and Rusty 06 is “beyond discussion”, the required material, with the necessary editings, is directly important for the preparation of Selimit”, it says in this decision.

In particular, Selimi's defence reportedly states that it has identified at least 12 out of 16 witnesses in the case of Salih Mustaf, in which it is supported by the SPS in the 05th case, who are expected to be backed by SPS in case 06.

“Based on the geographical and timing of facts between the 05th and the 06th case, Selimi's defence states that it is necessary to approach all statements and evidence of witnesses named in the 05th case, with the necessary editings, as they are corresponding to Selimi's defence preparations, including conducting its” investigations, it is further said.

Under the decision, Selimi's defence further states that it does not seek to change the safeguard clauses applied to witnesses in the 05th case, and that, in line with circumstances, the unread version of transcripts and evidence of these witnesses will be revealed in line with such safeguards.

Also reportedly, however, Selimi's defence claims he should not be put to a disadvantage, waiting for such a future date to have access to material related to his preparation, which falls outside the ordered safeguard clause.

“Paneli has found that the vast majority of the required material, particularly all confidential, closed and private transcripts of the hearing evidence and all confidential evidence (related to witnesses) could be given only to the case-of-case defence teams 06 in accordance with existing safeguard clauses for witnesses in the case of 05, that is, with the identity and identification of protected persons' data”, the decision said.

According to the court, this would make this material available only 30 days before each individual witness's testimony in the trial of the 06 cases, assuming that some or all of those witnesses will eventually testify to those procedures.

The following is said that even acknowledging that such material could be accessed by the protection of the 06th case at this stage, given that the total of protected witnesses to the 05th case testified almost entirely at private hearings because of safeguards.

“Transcrypts in question would have to be edited to such a extent that they would become essentially unintelligible for the protection of case 06 or would have a very limited value for them the testimony of witnesses to be called (including the lawyer and the protection of random victims 05), the panel is unable to decide on the material that is still to produce”, the ruling says.

And in terms of all confidential evidence (related to witnesses), and in view of the SPS statement that it has fulfilled its obligations for the discovery in the case of 06, in accordance with the ruling rules, the panel is said to be in no position to assess whether the evidence used in the 05 case has not already been revealed in the case of 06.

“in any case, even assuming that the above-mentioned material was not discovered and would fall either under Rule 102 (3) or Rule 103 of Rules, it is the obligation of the SPS to discover such material (as it is already in its possession), given existing safeguard clauses, as defined in rule 81 (1) (b) of rule”, says in this decision.

So, according to the court, the call for right judgment rights and the equality of arms to argue that protecting Case 06 is in a unfavourable situation against Z. The SP is unworthy.

“Seen as a whole, the panel finds that, if accepted, Selimi's defence request, joined by other case defence teams 06, would constitute a bypass of the procedure in case 06, including the process of uncovering it, which is under the control of the judge of the preliminary procedure assigned for that case”, is said to be further in that decision.

According to the decision, the court panel is not in position, nor should it be placed in such a position, to determine which evidence opened in the case of 05 may have been discovered (or will be discovered) in the case of 06, or included in the list of evidence submitted by the SPS, in that case in line with the 95 (4) Order Rule.

“In the same way, the panel is of the opinion that if the SPS eventually wants to rely on some or all of its witnesses in case 05 and related materials in the context of Rusty 06, it will have to reveal such material, including transcripts of their testimony before the juro, in due time and within the framework of the trial's intelligence process 06, as informed by the regulation and the judge of the preliminary procedure or the future body assigned for that case<1> says the verdict. /Betimy for Justice