The prosecution at The Hague wants closed hearings against KLA leaders, defence rejected

The Specialised Prosecutor's Office has proposed that 10 days after providing his testimony to a witness, then a edited transcript of statements he has issued, Nacional reports.

In addition to the transcript, the prosecution has proposed that part of the broadcast be made public, which is identical to the pieces edited in the transcript. This proposal has been strongly opposed by the defence, which has estimated this undermines the principle of publicity and transparency required.

The witness is questioned entirely in private session. This would enable the most effective and confident interrogation of the witness without having to be examined in real time about which parts of the interrogation can be public or public. The sides propose a revised version of the transcript. This may be on a busy schedule (for example, the caller sends a proposed transcript edited within 10 days after the last transcript connected to the witness becomes available, and parties that have not been called could have another 10 days to accept or reject any of the editorials. The Judicial Chamber decides on any controversial editing. A edited version of live transmission that reflects the final edited transcript is published. This would subject the registration office's ability to implement such changes in transmission of”, the prosecution's statement said.

The prosecution has acknowledged that the principle of publicity is extremely important. In spite of that, they have demanded that hearings be completely closed. As has happened so far, since the public in Kosovo has almost not heard what witnesses have said.

The prosecution has also objected to questioning by code for witnesses, assessing that it can cause confusion.

However, there will be many cases in which using codes or asking questions may be inappropriate to use with some witnesses (potentially for writing-reading reasons, health or other particular circumstances); it creates risks for witnesses; it causes confusion, not only for witnesses, but also potentially for parties, participants, panel and public; and full testimony; it leads to indirect and inefficient questions (including the need to double and reveal further identifying details in a private way); and/or it results in the cost of the tribunal's time valid content in the content of what can not be guided to the open session, in the money.

The prosecution has disclosed some statistics, assessing that 150 witnesses are not considered necessary safeguard clauses.

“at this stage, safeguard clauses in court have not been requested and currently not considered necessary for more than 150 witnesses. On witness assignment, Z. The SP takes into account protective measures and publicity. In this direction, a third of the 12 announced initial witnesses were scheduled to testify without protective measures”, the statement said.

However, this prosecution proposal has strongly rejected the protection of KLA leaders.

The proposal would violate the rights of our clients to be publicly judged. One essential component of publicity is that the public enjoys the possibility of monitoring the process until it develops. Information on developments long after they occurred does not coincide with the right to public judgment, nor is it in favour of public discurs”, provided by defence.

The verdict now rests with the court in The Hague Specialised Chambers.