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

In its July 17th request, 2025, the defence requires that the court ask that the questioning of defence witnesses be limited to the contents of the direct question, issues of credibility or relevant evidence of the party that it questions. It says that even when the prosecution is the one questioning, the evidence it intends to issue on its case should be limited to issues handled significantly during its main phase, reports the “Justice Vow “.

In addition, the parties questioning witnesses have been required to be ordered, preventing the release of evidence related to acts and conduct of a fellow accused who did not call him a witness.

Otherwise, on July 16, 2025, Selimi's defense and Wessel's had informed the parties and the jury that had no intention of presenting protective matters. While Krasniqi's and Thaci have declared they will call witnesses.

According to Selimi, the jurisdiction of Kosovo's Specialised Chambers has stressed that the accused who are tried together have rights similar to that of being tried alone.

Selimi through his defense has said it is the duty of the court to ensure that he enjoys the same rights he would have had if he was judged separately in the context of presenting future evidence by the accused.

“in particular, the Judiciary Panel requires that: (i) set limits on the content of questioning by opposing parties; (ii) require that the SPS meet the standard of new “proves to accept evidence through questioning defence witnesses; (ii) prohibit opposing parties from presenting evidence related to acts and behaviors of an accused who did not call him a witness; and (iv) to allow the defence teams to reopen in question if important questions arise from the prosecutor, the defence request is stated.

The request also states that in line with Rule 143 (3) mentioned in the command to develop the procedure, questioning of defence witnesses should be limited to issues stemming from the direct question, issues affecting witness credibility and evidence concerning the question of the party being questioned.

Selimi's defence says witnesses called by other indictees may have knowledge of events outside those involved in their statements or in direct questions from the defence he has called.

“Under current circumstances, where Mr. Selimi has decided not to present a defence case, justice and protection of his rights require that Rule 143 (3) be interpreted in line with the principles of Rule 127. This means that questioning will not allow the new presentation of evidence that the SPS has failed to present in its main phase”, the request said.

Therefore, it was required that SPS questions be limited only directly to the question asked, the credibility of witnesses, or issues that have been dealt with significantly during the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, not in indirect questions.

While allowing interrogation in additional areas, the defence says there is danger in expanding the charges against Selimi or changing his responsibility, which would not have to happen if he were to be tried alone and without offering protection.

As for the new evidence, Selimi's defence says the burden of testing is up to the SPS to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt during the main phase, when she wants to present evidence after the closure of that stage, she must show that evidence in question could not be secured and presented with reasonable caution.

According to protection, if this delay is justified, the court should accept them only under extraordinary circumstances when the interest of justice requires it.

This requirement is also valid for material on the Prosecution's test list, but not submitted during the main phase. To decide otherwise would mean bypassing the SPS's obligation to close its issue completely and at the right time”, the decision said.

To protect Selim from any unjustified prejudice, defence says it is necessary to prevent Z The SP from presenting evidence related to acts and behavior of the accused even if they are related to cases that were previously handled by the SPS.

The defence says that from the release of new claims, the resulting prejudice will not be relaxed sufficiently, taking into account the widespread investigative efforts needed to effectively counter such claims.

Selimi, through his defense, says the rules do not predict the possibility of a team that has decided not to call witnesses, change its announcement and open up issues to present material.

Therefore, defence can be deprived of the opportunity to present and produce evidence that opposes critical claims regarding Mr. Selimi...”, said in advance.

While, in terms of the order to develop procedures specifying questioning of a witness -- initially by the defence he has called, then other defence teams, the Prosecutor's Office, and ultimately the defender of the victims, Selimi has said that this order does not allow the reopening of interrogations.

Therefore, Selimi's defence demanded that defence be recognised the right to reopen a witness's interrogation if new issues arise or evidence directly affecting her case during questioning.

Under defence, in Selimi's case, stopping this possibility would cause serious prejudice. Thus, changing paragraph 112 of the Order on Development of Procedures is required to ensure the right to full-fledged protection with witnesses.

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 in all 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.

In addition to testifying on July 16, 2025, the testimony of these two witnesses continued on July 17, 2025, ending the testimony of the victims' defense witnesses.

The Specialised Prosecutor's Office, on September 30th 2022, has handed over the confirmed amended indictment against Hashim Thaci, Kadri Veselini, Jakup Krasniqi and Rexhep Selimi, which consists of ten points on charges, where the latter are charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On April 29th 2022, the Specialised Prosecutor's Office had handed over a amended indictment to Hashim Thaci, Kadri Wessel, Rexhepi and Jakup Krasniqi, where four indictees have committed war crimes even in Gjilan, Budakov and Semtish.

On November 9th 2020, in their first appearances, Hashim Thaci's Jakup Krasniqi has been declared innocent of the charges placed on them. Wessel has also been declared in his presentation on November 10th, as has Rexhep Selimi on November 11th.

The incident against Hashim Thaci, Kadri Veselin, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi is confirmed on October 26, 2020.