Emmerson requests from the Supreme Court the provisional release of Wessel: Special practices are alarming

British lawyer Ben Emmerson is not halting his efforts for the provisional release of former Prime Minister Kadri Wessel, who is still being held in custody by the Special Court in The Hague, while a year and a half since the arrest of KLA leaders and the trial against them has not yet begun.

Wessel's defense has been requested by the Supreme Court, which office within the Special Court in The Hague to order its provisional release, while praising that total practices related to this case related to the Special Chambers are alarming.

Thus, Emmerson has objected to the Court of Appeals' decision not to allow the provisional release of Wessel, and he has asked the Supreme Court the same thing because, according to him, Wessel's detention has now become unreasonable and that in every case the lower courts have committed violations and errors in their decisions.

In his letter, which was published on the Special Court page, Emmerson has recalled that the Special Chambers have banned 100% of all its indictees in custody, while adding that for an institution supposed to adhere to the highest human rights standards, this practice is not only miserable but alarming.

Parading must be exception, no rule. However, the practice of Specialised Chambers shows quite the opposite”, Emmerson says.

He claims that if the Court of Appeals' decision to keep Veselin in custody is left in force, such a practice will reach a step further, with detention becoming an absolute order, without exception.

The “A significant part of this court case has to do with the wrong meaning, from lower courts, the role of the Kosovo Police in the process of determining whether provisional release should be granted. Unlike international courts and tribunals, the KSC is a local court. Kosovo police are not the organ of a third state and concepts like entrepreneurship or gygaran are not applicable to it. In line with the KSC Law and Kosovo's other legislation, police are simply committed to implementing judicial orders. There is no such thing as preliminary guarantees or companies to enforce a” order, the letter of Wessel's defence said.

Emmerson has invited the College of the Supreme Court to declare that Wessel's detention has now become unreasonable and that in every case the lower courts have erred considering that no other alternative measure, including the possibility of house arrest in extreme conditions, is not enough to ease the risk of obstruction.

In this context, Wessel's defense has presented its own reasons, saying that the Court of Appeals was delayed in granting open opposition to European Court of Human Rights practices, that it violated the right to ruling in the contradiction of the parties, had acted in opposition to the European Court of Human Rights, under which, over time, authorities should give additional reasons for the risk of intervention in procedure, that it had erred in definition of the Court's duty to seek primarily alternative measures with detention, and that it has erred, as well as a reasonable year's detention.

For the reasons outlined above, defence requires the Supreme Court College to accept the request, restore and amend the controversial decision, and order Mr. Wessel, accompanied by whatever conditions you deem necessary and proportional; or by alternative order for Mr. Wessel and the return of the case only to determine any conditions considered necessary and proportional”, says the letter of Kadri Wessel's lawyer sent to the Supreme Court.