Prosecutor Wants to Refuse Selimi's request for questions of defence witnesses

Selimi had demanded that the prosecution be limited to controversial questioning only on issues that have been dealt with considerably during the presentation of its case, reports “Justice Trust “, broadcast Periscope.

While the prosecution in its parade handed down on July 28, 2025, had said it would unnecessarily bypass procedures regulating this trial and, as such, must be refused altogether. He said Selimi's request clearly ignores the regulation that concerns controversial questioning.

They also say that Rule 143 (3) allows parties to ask questions that have been considered during key questions but also questions on matters that are important to each other.

According to the prosecution, it was also found in the trial against Nasim Haradinaj and Hysni Gucati, which is allowed to question controversial questions on issues that are important in the case of the party taking a controversial question, including the SPS.

The prosecution says that the parties are also given broad discretion to inform the witnesses of any document or other evidence in line with the regulation” including documents that were not used earlier during interrogation. So the prosecution claims that documents that matter in her case can be used, and not only on issues that fall on the scope of key questions.

An order as Selimi has requested for the new evidence, the prosecution claims it would negatively affect justice, speed and efficiency of procedures. According to them, limiting the scope of the field in controversial interrogation, the court would face demands to restore previous witnesses to the courtroom to oppose cases that have been disfellowshipped.

The prosecution says Selimi's defence is seeking to prevent them from producing evidence during controversial interrogations that could be linked to his acts and behavior, whether that evidence is important or not.

This general prohibition is not justified and should be completely rejected, since (i) is about the hypothetical issues that require the context to be judged, (ii) is not necessary in light of broad safeguards within the current procedural framework, and (ii) conflicts with the nature of questioning witnesses and with the purpose of finding the truth”, the prosecution's preamble.

Likewise, the SPS says any request for changing paragraph 112 of the command on the development of the procedure is unnecessary, as this paragraph already provides sufficient opportunity for one party to ask permission to resume questioning.

Rexhep Selimi urges measures for defence witnesses during interrogation by other parties