Shala seeks to turn the case into retrial or impose a more appropriate sentence

“in light of nature and the impact of errors of law, fact and punishment, as well as the injustices that have been caused by Mr. Shala for a fair process, defence respectfully requires the Appellate Panel to abolish sentences imposed by the Court panel and/or to reverse the case for retrial and/or, if necessary, to impose a suitable” sentence, the defence document said.

According to the document's 14th point, the defense appealed the 18-year sentence after it was overworked.

The Court's “Panel did not consider at all the purpose of rehabilitation and reintegration into society during the sentence. The panel of judges did not sufficiently examine the scope of adequate sentences under domestic law, and it did not apply the easier sentence. The panel of judges erred in the law by failing to ensure equality in the sentence and by not properly considering the sentences imposed on similar and related cases, for individuals who, according to the tribunal's own findings, had greater responsibility for the accused crimes, as well as not offering a reasonable opinion of why he chose to leave those” sentences significantly, the document says.

Otherwise, at an appeal point, Shala's defence has claimed that supporting the Judiciary Panel in Shala's self-inferring statements, which had no legal representation during the interviews, makes the judgment against him unfair.

At an appeal point of two, it is claimed that the Judiciary panel erred by failing to implement the DHSK's legal framework properly, because it failed to announce the defence if Shala's self-inferring statements were accepted in material evidence.

This uncertainty continued even during the presentation of final documents from defence and during court conclusions. As a result, the defence did not have the right opportunity to express its opinion on those statements and comment on them without risking Mr. Shala not to incriminate” is said to appeal defence.

At point three, the defence has claimed that the sentences to Shala for points 1, 2 and 4, as well as the sentence for illegal arrests during an armed conflict were based on the form of responsibility not known for Kosovo's or international law during 1999.

As a result, the defence claims that Shala's rights were violated because he was held responsible for something that was not illegal in that time period and that this contradicts Article 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

At point four, the defence claims that the panel of court erred in the law when it condemned Shala to point 1, 3 and 4 because, according to them, the indictment was flawed that there were not enough details about alleged members of the joint criminal enterprise, his criminal activities and victims.

Furthermore, Shala's defence says the trial against their client was not fair because of this flawed indictment, which, according to them, contained vague and accumulated charges. As a result, they argue that this has deprived the accused of better protection, resulting in significant damage to the judicial process.

Also, the defence at the next point says Shala was charged with crimes against nine individuals, while the panel wrongly convicted her of crimes against 18 persons.

"Mr. Shala was charged with the crime of arbitrary ban and torture against nine individuals listed in the indictment, the Court's panel wrongly convicted him of arbitrary crime and torture in connection with eighteen individuals, of whom nine were not listed in the indictment”, the document said.

The document adds that this error requires revising the given punishment.

At the sixth point of appeal, the defence claims the panel of Judges made a mistake when it acknowledged the credibility of the prosecution's three main witnesses. The defence also claims that judges have erred even when they received statements from several other witnesses on the basis.

While at point 9, the defence claims that judges took into account improper factors and were given a crucial burden in evaluating the testimony of defence witnesses.

Otherwise, on July 16th, Peter Shala has been sentenced to 18 years in prison, where he was found to be guilty of points 1, 3 and 4 of the prosecution.

Shala was found guilty of detaining Arbytrar as a war crime against at least 18 people in the period between May 17th 1999 and June 5th of that year at the Metali Fabric in Kukes, torture as a war crime against at least 18 people and unlawful murder as a war crime against one person.

Otherwise, during February 2023, the trial had begun on this occasion, where on February 21st the prosecution and the defense of the victims have submitted their opening statements, while on February 22nd they have heard Peter Shala's opening statements of defense as well as statements without his oath.

In March 2023 it had begun to present evidence of the prosecution, where 10 witnesses were heard, and in August it had begun presenting evidence from the defender of the victims where two witnesses were heard.
Peter Shala was arrested on March 16, 2021, by Belgian authorities and transferred to The Hague on April 15, 2021, on the basis of a request for co-operation in implementing the warrant and order for transfer issued by Kosovo's Specialised Chambers.

In the confirmed indictment, Shala is charged with individual criminal responsibility in various forms of war crimes as arbitrary bans, cruel treatment, torture and illegal murder committed in the context of the armed conflict in Kosovo and in connection with this conflict.

The “commands that Mr. Shala was carried out approximately between May 17th 1999 and June 5, 1999, against persons who were held in the metal factory in Kukes (Albania), allegedly used by the Kosovo Liberation Army”, it is said in the communique. /Betimy for Justice