Complete collapse of the indictment in this phase of the process, real epilogue of the judicial process to former KLA leaders

First, we need to analyze some important elements that connect to this process:

The first, judges and prosecutors have prejudged the defendants, this approach has violated their dignity and authority, such prejudice and approach, was an attempt of reasoning about the failure of the EULEX mission in Kosovo.

The second, from the beginning of the job, this Court has witnessed nonprofession, through which the integrity of the Court and the process has been violated, and this was done by running information and documents. The court, it's under the market how it happened and if someone was held responsible within the Court.

The third, forwarding this court process from the very beginning, is unprecedented how prosecutors and judges with experience in international criminal law have not taken the chance to understand the context Kosovo has been through since the 80th years from now.

During the witness interrogation process, the impression was won that the same thought the KLA has been a regular military formation, which is behind full control in the entire territory of Kosovo and is behind the literal command hierarchy, like modern armies.

The fourth, prosecutors apparently fought more to honour a lawyer than the KLA has had a command structure and control throughout the entire territory of Kosovo, and more to convince the opinion of this than to base such a claim on evidence, evidence and concrete evidence by which the court would be convinced of it.

Beyond these elements, the process at The Hague was untransparent, contrary to one of the basic principles, the principle of publicity, the protracted process, contrary to the principle of judgment within a reasonable time.

The process where the court (at least one of them) questions suggestive and orientation, therefore prohibited questions, which question its objective and the juro, is subsequently violated by one of the basic rights, the right to fair and impartial judgment respectively.

The process, based on evidence and non-transparent evidence, where silent and figure witnesses emphasized more than once what was in the statement, was not stated by them, there were even mental injuries. Unable to manage witnesses, which despite severe measures, witness “appears to be”.

The Witnesses, although invited by the prosecution, said more loud and powerfully that “we have not reported to these”, that is, former Kosovo Liberation Army leaders, which they are facing charges and this unjust process.

These are just a few -- we're always talking as far as we can see -- from the elements that make this process compromised, and therefore only the total collapse of the indictment that at this stage of the process would be a real epilog of this process.

This determines the need to use on the part of the protection of the opportunity that determines the 130th Rule of Procedure and Specialised Chamber Evidences.

Under this rule, and from the fact that the hearing of witnesses of the prosecution has already ended and the moment that the presentation of evidence from the latter will be completed, which is said to have until 15 April, after this stage, the defense informs the court of the possibility of handing over a motion to drop any clause or all points of the indictment, depending on how defence values such a thing.

Such a motion should be submitted within ten (10) days by the closure of the prosecution's presentation of evidence. The prosecution could also present answers within ten (10) days of submitting the motion.

After hearing the parties and, if necessary, even the defender of the victims, the court can bring down certain points or points of the indictment if there is no evidence that supports a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt over the accusations in question.

To the court's ruling that the indictment or any of its points falls, the prosecution within the 10-day term has the right to file a complaint. The defense, on the other hand, does not have the right to complain about the decision with which the request for the collapse of an indictment or any of its points is denied.