Special spokesperson: Former KLA soldiers at this stage can be tried in freedom, peaceful archives

Senior Kosovo Specialised Chambers Information Official ( In The Hague, Michael Doyle, in an interview for Online Economy, stressed that Hashim Thaci's judgment, Kadri Veselin, Jakup Krasniqi and Rexhep Selimi is not possible in this period.

He stressed that such a decision is not possible by taking on grounds that former KLA leaders should be controlled by a separate panel every two months.

This is a decision that a proper criminal must make because this panel should control every two months those who are being tried and then decide whether they should be released or should still continue to stay in prison, and when they do this they will also see if there is any danger that they may not return or any other risk you may have related to the prisoners, decisions related to Thaci and Veselin, the Court found that they were at risk of misprocedure on judicial procedures, but that judges should see this question again every two months when someone who has not yet condemned<1>

He also stressed until April 2025 in the trial of former KLA leaders, all confirmed witnesses are expected to be heard so far. But this year may change if judges find it reasonable to call the witnesses back and ask them about these matters.

By April 2025, they would complete the call of all their witnesses, who would be asked by the defenders after that, it's a little hard to assess what's going to happen, so that the defenders could first present evidence to refute allegations that they might say they don't have enough evidence and call for dismissal of the charges, and if such a dismissal is not given, then we would step into the phase when the protected team can pick witnesses to support their case, so we know that the prosecutor had said two years later, but what we can't say to the judges, because we can't make things work quickly.

Special spokesman stressed the importance of witnesses and evidence in the entire trial process at The Hague. He even said that specialized rooms should not convince anyone about the evidence or their quality.

He adds it is the judges' work afterwards to see if the evidence presented is of value and are acceptable.

I think this question is more of a misunderstanding about the role of the Special Court judges and the role of the court. The Special Court's Special Chambers must not convince anyone of the evidence coming or even of the quality of evidence because the party is still on trial and it is the Prosecutor and the defenders who decide what they want to present and whether it is evidence they think it will make the case better, so in the case of the prosecution they want proof that they think they'll prove the charges in the indictment and then they want these evidence to be brought and then it's a matter of judges to take these trials and put them before the constitution.

So for every test the judges have to look at whether the evidence has the right value and whether they are certain about the right case as well as if the evidence is authentic and they are acceptable and the task of judges in this case is to evaluate and decide on the basis of what is presented because and the law should accept the evidence and address that evidence in the final decision, the other side in the prosecution has the right to challenge evidence so that this change can raise cases with evidence presented by the prosecution calling witnesses and thus they can ask evidence to be challenged, and then they will address all the trials of the judges and finally decide that they see the case before the justice.

When he spoke of holding most of the closed sessions, he said it is being done in order to protect witnesses or victims in these cases.

“Procedures are public, however, the judges will decide to close sessions or make private sessions on the case, and this usually concerns the protection of witnesses or victims in this case, so that any part of the prosecution protects the victim can cancel and sessions can be passed at private sessions, and judges will make a careful definition of evidence or do not justify and, in fact, what they can do to protect the witness”.

Asked about the Special Archives, he reiterates that the Law adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Kosovo envisions management taking the Special Chambers even after the closure. He explains that opening archives is not possible given witness preservation.

The legislation that was approved by the Kosovo Assembly envisions the management of archives following the closure of Special Chambers. And provisions of the law say that our safe warehouse of archives will be kept outside Kosovo for the archive, and the reason for this is that witnesses victims and other persons can continue to be protected even after the closure of the” Court.

Former KLA leaders are facing war crimes charges during the recent war in Kosovo from March 1998 to September 1999. / EO/