Judgment Against Peter Shala, Lawyer: There are differences in statements given by the first protected witness

As soon as the hearing begins, Peter Shala's defence attorney, Jean-Louis Gilissen, asked the witness to clarify his statement yesterday concerning the siege of the house by KLA soldiers.

Lawyer Jean-Louis Gilissen said there is disagreement with the witness's statement given on January 20th and the explanation he made at the hearing yesterday.

Part of the judgment:

Jean-Louis Gilissen Avocacy: On January 20th, you told the investigators that the KLA soldiers came and surrounded the house on May 14, 1998, about 6:00, I wasn't home at the time. Do you think it's compatible with the explanation you gave us yesterday?

Judge Mapie Veldt- Foglia: That was explained yesterday.

Lawyer Jean-Louis Gilissen: I know, but I think there's a difference in the witness's statement, it doesn't correspond to what he said yesterday and his statement.

Prosecutor: Of course, the defense attorney can present all previous statements to the witness. But the witness explained it yesterday, and I showed him this part of his statement and he explained it to us. He wasn't home the first time.

Lawyer Jean-Louis Gilissen: You said if we wanted to submit a document statement based on the witness statement we should quote. I'm ready to quote all the pieces of the statement I need to include in my file, but they're long I don't read them all, so I prefer to ask short questions and continue in this form. It's impossible to make this date mistake, it's about a day. The Witness explains only one visit and gave a date.

Judge Mapie Veldt- Foglia: Surely we want you to ask all the questions to the witness that is necessary for protection. We're for fair judgment.

Prosecutor: It's not a statement. It's an account of the investigators unwritten by the witness. When we talk to them, they're notes taken by investigators, not statements by witnesses.

Lawyer Jean-Louis Gilissen: I want to present to the court the most important parts of the declaration. If we ask him just about what we read yesterday, then it's pointless, it's not true, it's not reality.

Judge Mapie Veldt- Foglia: I understand it's an important part of witnessing. I understand you want to read today the explanations he's given regarding the ZPS question.

Lawyer Jean-Louis Gilissen: Was it a question I was asking him to read it all or to ask him the quickest questions?

Judge Mapie Veldt- Foglia: Summarize and have reference.