The Special releases the indictment: Two hundred thousand euros mentioned, agreement with witness for attracting testimony to The Hague

The Special Court has confirmed the indictment against Haxhi Shala, who is being charged with obstruction in the administration of justice.

He has been extradited to The Hague, as the specialised Prosecutor's Act is said to have held several meetings with a witness for withdrawing his testimony.

Among other things, the witness reportedly said that if they offered 200 thousand euros, they would have an agreement.

“Concretically, Januzi told witness 1 that Shala had asked Januz to convey the message that if witness 1 withdrew his testimony.

Then Shala and other unidentified people would offer help.

Witness 1 answered that if Shala and the others brought 200,000 euros, they would have a” deal, the indictment said.

According to the indictment, several meetings were held on April 5, 6 and 9, when it is mentioned that Bahhitari had gone to the witness's house.

Based on the announcement issued by the Special Court, Shala is expected to appear before the tribunal in The Hague on 13 December. It is located in pre-medigration rooms at The Hague.

Full Special Prosecution Act:

Haxhi Shala, through heavy rowing and joint action of a group of people she has attended, has attempted to prevent an official person -- a judge, a prosecutor, a court official, a prosecutor's officer, or a person authorised by the court and the prosecution -- in carrying out official duties, respectively.

As specified below, at least between April 5th 2023 and April 12, 2023, Shala, in association with other individuals, including Sabit Januzin and Ismet Bahitari, were co-ordinated as a group before and after personal approaches to witnesses 1 from Januz and Bahtari.

Concretically, Shala, Januzi and Bahtyar met individually with Witness 1 in order to push witness 1 to withdraw evidence or fail to give evidence in official procedures before DPS.

This behaviour demonstrates Shala's intention to undermine and undermine an official person in performing official duties.

Then, after summoning and verifying that witness 1 was at home, Bahhitari came to the house of witness Bahtiari told witness 1 that Shala had recently approached him and sent him to tell witness 1 that he should withdraw his testimony.

Bahtier left the witness's house and went to a nearby car where two men were waiting, with a third person in the driver's seat.

As a result of this approach, Witness 1 took an interest in his family's safety.

Later, on April 5, 2023, after Bahhitari had visited witness 1.

Shala and Januzi, and apart from Januzi and Bahhitari, engaged in numerous text and phone contacts, including contacts between Shala and Januzi, to coordinate a personal meeting at the same evening.

In the following days, Shala and Januzi, among other things, remained in contact, including telephone connections at least four times between April 6th and April 9, 2023.

On April 12, 2023, shortly after Shala called, Januz went to witness house 1.

At the witness's house 1, Januzi told witness 1 that Shala had asked Januz to continue his visit and find out what Witness 1 had planned to do and how the question of his testimony could be handled.

Concretically, Januzi told witness 1 that Shala had asked Januz to convey the message that if Witness 1 would withdraw his testimony, then Shala and other unidentified people would offer help. Witness 1 answered that if Shala and the others brought 200,000 euros, they would have a deal.

15. Witness 1 did not confirm or deny that he would continue to be a witness. JANUSIA said he would tell you what witness 1 had said.

16. Shortly after his visit on April 12, 2023 to Witness 1, Januzi called Shala again

17. As a result of the second approach, Witness 1 was further concerned about his safety and his family.

18. Shala (i) created serious fears and concerns for the person, Witness 1, who has or is likely to offer information about any crime or offense that falls under the jurisdiction of the DKC, in this way trying to discourage that person from providing (more) information about any crime under KSK jurisdiction; (ii) threatened the ability of the DSF/ The SPS to investigate and prosecute crimes effectively, including receiving and providing relevant witness testimony; and (ii) diverted SPS's resources and time to address the current and possible consequences for witness 1 and his family in connection with the formal procedures of the TSF.

The Special Decision You Can Find in English THESE.