Special Prosecution Charged by Thaci's Protection That Mishandling Public Declarations by Lawyer Pallaska

The defence, at the outset of its response, has found that the request of the Specialised Prosecutor's Office is based on misinterpretations they have made to Pallasca's public comments.

The request is based on misinterpretation of Mr. Pallaska” is highlighted in the response of lawyers.

Lawyers say the Special Prosecutor's Office “through the use of elips has manipulated Mr. The package to produce a claim that Mr. Polaska is publicly accusing the Prosecutor of propaganda falsely, to label Kosovo as a criminal state”.

In addition, lawyers point out that the transcript of Attorney Pallasska's TV interview testifies to something else, while accusing the prosecution that he has hidden claims against Pallasca so that the public cannot see them.

Mr. The package, which the Special Prosecutor's Office has confidentially deposited, preventing the public from seeing them, makes it clear that Mr. Pallaska was referring to Serbia's intention to criminalise Kosovo as a state, not the Special Prosecutor's Office. This manipulation of evidence by the Specialised Prosecutor's Office in order to fabricate charges of violations against the lawyer should be addressed appropriately by the Judicial Chamber. For the following reasons, Mr. Polaska should not be harmed by reputation because of manipulation of his words by the Special Prosecutor's Office” is said to respond to lawyers.

Koeohe and Palka argue that attorney Pallaska's comments only repeat Thaci's defence positions.

Therefore, the defence denies that Mr. The peacocks were false or deceptive. Furthermore, the standard that must meet the request of the Specialised Prosecutor's Office is set out in the Order of the Judicial Chamber for the Development of the procedure, which makes it clear that the Special Prosecutor's Office must prove that the lawyer made remarks that were the “intentionally or knowingly”. Here, the Special Prosecutor's Office makes no effort to justify the claim that Mr. Pallaska has made fraudulent statements in his interview with RTK Prime, much less than Mr. The package was deliberately deceptive or knowingly” highlighted Koehe and Palaska in their parade.

Two lawyers have clarified that Pallaska has declared that Serbia aims at criminalising the state of Kosovo, not the SPS, but this, according to them, has been removed from context.

“Z. Pallaska has clearly argued that Serbia's goal has been for Kosovo to be declared a criminal state. Mr. Pallaska has stressed that, as long as this may not be the goal of the Specialised Prosecutor's Office, it should be attentive to Serbia's goal of undermining Kosovo's citizenship. Again, the Special Prosecutor's Office has removed all this context through elips to make Mr. Pallaska has accused the Specialised Prosecutor's Office, not Serbia, of declaring Kosovo criminal state”.

Later, lawyers, in response, have published parts of Pallasca's statements to argue that he has not said what the prosecution claims.

The Special Prosecutor's Office claims that Mr. Pallac “Publicly accuses the Prosecutor of propaganding lies, to label Kosovo a criminal state. ” This statement misinterprets Pallasca's comments” they stress.

According to lawyers, the “hosting the Specialised Prosecutor's Office is based on the two cut fragments and disconnected Mr. The package with RTK Prime, which was misinterpreted as if we were the only passage of a single statement and/or part of the same statement and/or statements on the same subject” argue the lawyers, stating that the prosecution has manipulated statements.

The two lawyers have detailed in the 13-page arguments offered to the Judicial Chamber in response to the Specialised Prosecutor's Office.

On the other hand, about the statement of whether it is being tried at The Hague or its members, defence says it is its position that has been repeatedly articulated.

“ZPS also complains about Mr. Pallaska that the simple reading of paragraph 35 suggests that the indictment extend to all KLA members and, as such, is contrary to SPO's oral parachutes that the KLA is not on trial. But that's the position the Defense has repeatedly articulated in this case. In fact, because of its importance to Mr. Thaci, this argument is also clearly presented in Mr. Thaci” stress lawyers.

They ask the Judicial Chamber to reject it.

The SPS request that Mr. The package will be warned of identifying a difference between the written prefixes and those of SPS orals and, most importantly, for underlining an issue that is a constant part of the defence case, must be dismissed” is highlighted in the defence building.

Lawyers have also addressed the Polaska attorney's statement that the indictment at The Hague has nothing to do with Dick Marty's report, which the Special Prosecutor's Office has complained about.

Mr. Kritika “The package is consistent with arguments and defence criticism” is highlighted among other things in the parliament.

Furthermore, Pallaska and Koehe stress that the Specialised Prosecutor's Office is making efforts to eliminate legitimate criticisms and suppress free speech leads to Hashim Thaci's violation of the right to have fair and open processes. It is also noted that this is a violation of Thaci's attorneys' rights for free expression, the Constitution of Kosovo, the European Convention for Human Rights and the Law for Specialised Chambers.

“in a court process that has so far been kept in secret, trying the Prosecutor's Office to impose even more secrecy by preventing Mr. Thaci and his lawyers publicly articulate Mr. Thaci makes the demand even more damaging to the public perception of commitment of the Specialised Chambers for Protection. Basic rights for a fair and public process and for freedom of expression” highlight lawyers.

“As summary, specialised Office request is nothing more than an attempt to limit fundamental rights for free expression. The defence suggests that, in accordance with Article 40 of the Kosovo Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (applicable in this case through Article 53 of the Constitution of Kosovo), the Specialised Chambers cannot limit the rights of the accused and the defence attorney to express themselves publicly unless it is strictly necessary and proportional to protect another important public interest <x>

Lawyers in the end argue that the prosecution's request fails to prove any misconception by Pallasca, or that Pallasca's statements were intentional or misleading.

In addition, the request fails to identify any important public interest that would merit the restriction on the part of Mr. Thaci for the fair and public process, as well as for the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed with Article 40 of the Kosovo Constitution for Mr. Thaci and his lawyer”

Thus, lawyers at the very end of their establishment ask the Judicial Chamber to reject the entire request of the Special Prosecutor's Office. /Gazza Express