Prosecutor seeks to continue detention of Veselin, Krasniqi and Selimi

The Specialised Prosecutor's Office (ZPS) has requested from Kosovo's Specialised Chambers ( DrsK) continues detention measure Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi. For the three accused, the Prosecutor has made requests separate and handed them over on August 26th 2025, reports “Justice Vow”. The prosecution says that for Wessel, Selim [...]
For the three accused, the Prosecution has made the demands split and handed them over on 26 August 2025, reports “The Justice Vow”.
The prosecution says that for Veselin, Selimi and Krasniqi there is no development since the recent decision on continuing detention, which would support changing that move.
According to the prosecution, there is suspicion based on having committed crimes within the jurisdiction of the DPS, namely war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The prosecution says there are enough real possibilities for Veselini, Selimi and Krasniqi to escape. That, the prosecution argues, citing the indictees' knowledge of the serious charges confirmed against them and the possible punishment that could result from them. They are also said to have knowledge of the evidence regarding these crimes.
In addition, the prosecution claims that the three defendants are in danger of obstructing procedures, and the outcome of the prosecution's case does not eliminate this danger because there is a danger of witnesses being stumbled even after giving their testimony.
The prosecution cites the court's assessments, adding that the risk of intervention involved any attempt to avenge witnesses who have testified in these procedures, attempts to boost the withdrawal of evidence and attempts to intervene in witnesses in parallel procedures.
According to the prosecution, the release of one of the accused would not be in line with effective witness protection.
The prosecution says the climate of witness intimidation and interference in criminal procedures against former KLA members continues in Kosovo.
They also refer to a ruling by the Court in the case against Hysni Gucatt and Nasim Haradinaj, where it is said witness protection has continued to be the actual issue in Kosovo.
The prosecution points out that the testimony of expert Robert Reid, who had declared that over 20 years in this area, had not seen witness intimidation at the level existing in Kosovo.
The climate of witness intimidation in Kosovo was also found in the trial of Peter Shala, according to the Prosecutor.
This climate of intimidation continues to be present, as noted by the Court College in the Shala case and as seen in media reports, including after the testimony. The provocative and personal nature of the attacks, as well as the comments they promote, may endanger the privacy, welfare and security of future witnesses and/or past”, says in demand for continuing detention of Jakup Krasniqi.
Even in the request for Krasniqi, the prosecution again refers to the posting of the defendant who had made it in 2020, in which he allegedly spoke of collaborators as well as public statements, where he had criticised DSF.
In addition, the three accused are said to be in danger of committing other crimes.
As a result, the prosecution says no provision for parole can sufficiently ease existing risks, as well as continued detention remains proportional and reasonable.
Meanwhile, on April 15th 2025, the prosecution has announced that it has completed presenting evidence in the case.
While, the defence had applied according to the 130th Rule, which envisions a request to drop any charges or charges altogether in the indictment. The decision on this requirement was made on 16 July 2025. According to the chairman of the panel, Charles Smith III, what he had sought protection was his failure to rely on war crimes claims involving incidents that occurred before May 1998 and after June 20, 1999.
The trial “Trug notes that incidents and events that have occurred at the time opposed by defence are not accusations within the understanding of the 130” rule, the chairman of the court, Charles Smith III, said.
As a result, this motion had been dropped with the reasoning that the court's authority is to bring down material that constitutes accusations involving time causes. While, the same day, the protection of the victims had presented its evidence, calling two expert witnesses to testify simultaneously.












