Special clashes between the Prosecutor's and the protection of former officials for the testimony of “Remit” in session

This testimony has caused clashes at today's session at The Hague. This after the prosecution in recent moments has demanded that Remi's previous testimony be taken into account, so that, according to them, “saves the time”. So, the prosecution demanded that Remy not go to the hearing to confirm the previous evidence, but only to answer the defence questions.

If Mustafa's testimony is taken into account, then the defence will likely not have time to submit her questions in detail.

This has caused strong opposition from lawyers.

Luka's statement Misetic Thaci's lawyer:

Taking into account staying at the preparation session, Z. The SP has changed its strategy. The Witness does not want to say further things about what he said in the statement, this does not mean that the declaration should be accepted according to the rule. We do not identify the logic of why this is happening, and why it is required that the declaration be accepted in this way. Taking into account what happened in the preparation phase, this is the reasonable factor not to accept SPS demand, because the witness has not made corrections and revisions by his earlier statements.

This witness was told as a suspect in the interview. He was told that he must tell the truth, if not he can face prosecution, and we are stating that with the Kosovo Criminal Code that this is contrary to what the witness should be told. This is a factor you should consider. The problem with this is that the suspect may have a motive to defend himself if he is interviewed as a suspect, and that's another reason we should listen directly to this witness's testimony. Efficiency and time should not be cut off for high-level witnesses, let's say that we will be able to deal with the efficiency of the court time if for such witnesses we hear their testimony in the courtroom and not accept their testimony on the basis of rule 154. Such witnesses should give their testimony here.

The prosecution does not want to explain these and pass them on to the defense, and ask the questions you want. This is a safeguardary violation, and it's not a requirement that meets the 154 rule criteria.

Kadri Wessel's attorney statement:

This material is not clear, the witness faces conflicting statements and it is the responsibility of defence to clarify things that are not clear and that is a matter that we have to do with counter-question. We need more time from our defense point of view, but saving time will not be in those dimensions that were introduced by the prosecution. We want to be heard because we're going to take at least one day, a one-day delay to reorganize. The fact that this was highlighted during the witness's preparation hearing, I would like to know more about the interests of justice that appear here. This witness is unique and problematic, and it would be problematic to accept his testimony according to the 154 rule. The witness has been interviewed as a suspect. The tactics of the interview are such that they can serve to lead to different conclusions.

Jeffrey Roberts' statement, Rexhep Selimi's lawyer:

From the prosecution's perspective, this interview was conducted four years ago and there's a long time of intervention when discussions and other demands could have been made, and the way to deal with the witness in question was restored. The prosecution didn't do his job, waited three or four days to see how he handles the testimony. It hasn't been accidental, it's a position of Z The SP that wants me to do the finished job force you to accept the testimony of the witness to the SPS request.