Prosecution Witnesses End Trial Against Former KLA Chiefs Implicit

The following sessions in this case have been canceled and according to Z statement. The SP, during the progress conferences, finds that the prosecution has ended up calling its witnesses, reports “Justice bet“, notes Periscope.

According to the chairman of the court, Charles Smith III, the trial was extended indefinitely.

The next session will not be April 15th, will it? Because some people will not be present. So we'll do it after April 15th. We're going to do the corresponding planning and we're going to let you know. Then we'll take the corresponding steps by predicting that you've completed your course to that point”, he said.

In addition, the court's reasons for accepting the testimony of Ismet Tara under Rule 143 (2b) and (c) were given. This rule says that by authorizing the court, the summoner can ask the witness about issues that are related to his credibility. So the witness can be asked about allegedly informed cases that when asked, he does not try to testify. In addition, a witness's testimony can be accepted according to this rule, since the witness has issued earlier and incompatible statements.

“Any such inconsistencies may be acceptable for assessing the witness's credibility as well as the authenticity of its contents or for other purposes according to the court's judgment”, said at this rule point 2c).

According to Smith, Ismet Tara witnessed at The Hague on February 24th and 25th 2025. According to him, on the first day of his testimony, during the questions posed to Tara, the SPS requested that earlier statements of this witness and the pre-preparative note be accepted along with three accompanying evidence under the 143 2 (b) rule and (c).

The defence had rejected accepting this statement on the basis of this rule. The same day, the statements of this witness were accepted in material evidence along with the feasibility footnote and three accompanying evidence under this rule.

According to the court, as far as the 2001 declaration was concerned, the witness has given comments in 2019 on the SPS as well as during the preparation hearing. In addition, Smith said they have found that the witness stands behind the 2019 interview and there was no uncertainty in the feasibility note as Thaci's defence has claimed.

He said that despite the witness being warned that he was breaking court orders, Tara did not answer SPS questions, but only defence.

The trial “Trup estimates conditions or criteria have been met according to the 143 (2b) rule and (2c). The court estimates that the inability to give a witness may actually be considered an earlier declaration of inconsistencies. The court estimates the parties agree that the witness's 2001 statement, in fact, is not in line with the other evidence this witness has given. The court is also convinced that the witness's real indiscriminateness to bear witness on aspects of knowledge and that he has mentioned in the previous feasibility statement makes the 2019 interview, the feasibility note and the accompanying evidence considered incompatible”, he said.

In addition, the chairman of the court said that as far as the confirmation of these materials is concerned under the 143 rule, it has been estimated that Tara's testimony is relevant to facts and circumstances that are fundamental to the charges in the indictment, especially in terms of the structure, organisation and hierarchy of the KLA, as well as the crimes referred to by the indictment.

“Consequently, the court estimates that earlier witness statements, feasibility footnotes and accompanying materials are relevant to this judicial process in terms of information contained, but also to the credibility of this witness”, he said.

While, as for authenticity, Smith said they note that Krasniqi's defence has rejected the 2001 declaration, arguing that Tara denies giving that testimony.

As a result, the judge recalled an earlier decision in which he has concluded that the preparation note during a criminal investigation that reproduces information given by a witness is described as a statement.

According to him, Tara's 2001 statement was received during a criminal investigation and contains information provided by investigators for this witness. As a result, he pointed out that this statement contains a lot of variations of authenticity, which has dates, names, signatures of investigators as well as of Tara's personal data.

He also said that he makes this document authentic and that this statement is in an official template.

He said it is up to the court to assess the witness's credibility at a later stage and how supportive his testimony is.