The specialist admits that in the case of former KLA leaders, questions were asked -- “to keep the focused witness”

According to Greep, this is reflected in the decision to reject the request of four defence teams on this issue for measures for impartiality and not cause damage to defence.

The court's “The jury used suggestive questions to keep the witness focused on the question being asked”, Greep said.

Initially, Greep indicated that during the defence hearing, he has not rejected any court rulings, nor has he raised concerns about questions asked by the court.

The court's <x0). The court further noted that regulation does not determine how long the court's questions last and stressed that in many judicial systems the most questions are asked by judges”, she said.

The spokeswoman said that the court stressed that the defence has not recorded any questions the court posed to witnesses mentioned in the defence motion, which was not relevant or linked to truth research.

Greep noted that the court has stressed that their questions could lead to incriminating or excusing evidence or related to the credibility of a witness.

While, on claims of surprise questions, Greep said that in his decision, the court has shown that the defense has provided only one example. According to Greep, the court said they used Sugitistic questions to keep the witness focused on the questions being asked.

The court reminded him several times to answer questions, and in this case, the court used Sugit questions to keep the witness focused on the question being asked. The court recalled that it is his duty to assess the credibility of witnesses and the reliance on their testimony. Pre-restriction of questions from the court would be serious interference in the role of the jury as a neutral detector to the evidence”, Grieep said.

In judging Thaci, Veselini, Krasniqi and Selimi, Greep indicated that on February 24th the prosecution was authorised to continue to see evidence requested by a defence team brought about other teams as usual. While, two days later, according to her, the court has partially approved the acceptance of some material evidence concerning the organisation of the KLA in the Drenica Operative Zone, based on their authenticity and representation, as well as considering that accepting these documents does not cause damage to defence according to the judicial body's findings.

While arguing that some material evidence was authentic, Greep indicated that the court has rejected such a ZPS request. She indicated that on 21 February, a similar SPS motion for evidence concerning the Llap Operative Zone was partially adopted, and was ordered by Z. The SP was to change the list of evidence no later than February 28th 2025.

Greep cited the fact that on February 19, 2025, the sentence against Sabit Januz and Ismet Bahitari has been modified, releasing them on certain conditions.

While in the case against Thaci against the administration of justice, Greep indicated that on February 25th, 2025, Appeal has approved the Smakaj Union's application and Fadil Faliu for extending the deadline to respond to the SPS appeal against the decision to confirm the indictment. The deadline is set on March 3rd 2025.

Otherwise, according to Greep, Appeli has noted that the aspects that appeal can therefore influence the results of the process and is in the interest of the justice of Samakaj and Fazliu defenders to be given time to get acquainted with the court case before responding to the ZPS appeal.

While the judge of the preliminary procedure in this case has extended the deadline for handing over preliminary motions, arguing that Apeli has still made a decision regarding the decision to confirm the prosecution's appeal.

The handover of preliminary motions will take place 21 days after Apel will decide on the SPS complaint and if the indictment is confirmed as a whole under the verdict of the preliminary procedure judge.

While, in case Apel decides otherwise, Greep indicated that the judge will issue orders for the dates and relevant deadlines.

Among other things, Greep also spoke of the Supreme decision to confirm Apel's decision to have Salih Mustafa sentenced to 15 years in prison.

On the other hand, in terms of the order to damage him, Greep indicated that the judge who oversees this process has ordered the defender of the victims and manager to hand over the revised public versions of some related statements.

As a result, he has ordered these two sides to make written statements if they feel that some of them should not be made public as well as when it may be possible for them to be published, reports the “Justice Trust”.

Otherwise, Kosovo Specialised Chambers in The Hague every Thursday at 14:30, via online platform “Zoom” hold weekly information offering updated information on recent developments regarding judicial procedures and activities in this court.