17 minutes agoPeter Shala claims that the Special violated his rights during his interview in Belgium
Periskopi(3 years ago)
(3 years ago)Peter Shala's defense has claimed that his client was violated when he was interviewed twice in Belgium, once in 2016 and in 2019. This has sparked controversy with the Special Prosecutor, who intends to testify otherwise. The case has been sent to the Court of Appeals for consultation, which has [...]
On the parade he saw Insander newspaper, Shala's defence says the former KLA commander during the time he was interviewed in Belgium was not told what quality he was asked about and was not mentioned the right to free legal representation. They have said that neither the scale of Shala education has been taken into account.
“Shala argues that he had not been properly informed and adequate for his right to help with a lawyer and the right to free legal representation both in money and in the interview. In this regard, Shala claims that the assessment of whether the accused is informed enough about this right requires the application of a subjective test and that the court has not estimated that he has only completed lower middle education”, said the parliament.
Referring to a Shala interview in 2019 in Belgium, the defence says the “giage used during the interview referring to “The usual blablas” was not the right statement”.
On the other hand, the Specialised Prosecutor's Office says Shala was properly informed before each interview and that he understood his rights.
Regarding the Belgian interview of 2016, ZPS underlines that Shala was an adult, was not detained, had preliminary experience as a suspect in criminal procedure and had access to an interpreter. The ZPS argues that contrary to Shala's arguments, the Judicial Chamber rightly concluded that he was given the opportunity to seek legal advice before and during the” interview, it is said in advance.
Despite defence claims, Appeals has decided to drop Shala's request and has closed the possibility of re-appellation.
“As a summary, although the panel disagrees with the way the demand for the cause connection between violating the rights of a suspect and collecting evidence was implemented by the Judicial Chamber and considers that such a request is not provided specifically by the ECHR jurisdiction, the panel has not identified a legal error and therefore dismissed the case...”, said the Appeals report.
According to this statement, Shala was interviewed twice in Belgium in the quality of the suspect in running an improvised prison where people were allegedly mistreated.
In Shala's case, 11 witnesses have been heard so far. The trial against him is expected to continue 19 May.
