After the defense, witness Fraser is being questioned by the prosecution.

In this case, Hashim Thaci, the Smaj Union, Isni Kilaj, Fadil Fazliu and Hajredin Kuci are charged with criminal acts against the administration of justice.

Hashim Thaci's defender, lawyer Sophie Menegon, even in the course of the questions, presented a SPS document from Thaci's visits, reports “Justice Trust“.

As for the audio of Smajt's visit, the witness said that what has been said to determine their accuracy is not finally known.

As for the transcriptor of Fadil Fazliu's visits, based on SPS documents, the lawyer said this translator was present in 31 SPS interviews or contacts with witnesses and seven other interviews with witnesses on the war crimes case.

Menegon said his task was a reviewer of documents/translator, which seems more like the analyst's position. That's what Fraser agreed to.

In the next SPS document, the person involved in the transcript was involved in reviewing the 13 transcripts of Thaci and others, in particular from Fazliou and Smaj. He said that this person was largely responsible for the final revision of the transcripts.

According to Menegon, this person was of Albanian citizenship and has been present in 64 interviews or contacts with witnesses, and 17 other interviews, contacts or phone calls with witnesses. She said Albanian is his native language and has a translation degree.

Regarding the impact this person may have had, the expert said there is interaction between information and transcriptal work, adding that this is not a good experience.

These documents were accepted in evidence.

Helen Fraser reaffirmed that you cannot rely on those SPS transcripts as accurate.

As for the transcripts revised by SPS, Fraser said that from her experience, this is the ongoing process of reviewing and editing, because the context becomes clearer. He said that he does not know what the court should do about these versions, but according to him, there should be only one final version.

Thaci's lawyer presented two versions of the SPS transcripts regarding the same Smajt visit, where she compared the changes to two versions.

The expert said it is impossible to decide which of these versions is correct.

According to the witness, in the case of questions before the word “specifically”, the transcriptor may not have been sure of the accuracy of the word used.

Then a document was presented by the transcript of Kylay's visit, where it was said there were three versions of the transcript.

When a transcript is prepared, the witness stated how the process makes sense.

According to her, in this case, the only way to assess credibility is to create a new transcript.

In contrast, regarding a Kucci transcript, also released by the Prosecutor, it was suggested that some changes were made by the translation unit into the translation/transliteration of SPS in several sentences that were marked in dark color.

The Witness agreed that the translation unit has done little correction.

According to Fraser, he said that in this case we are looking at textual exposure, adding that the ideal would be to have literal transcriptors.

She said it is not certain first which version of SPS has been used because it has no established date, meanwhile, mentioned that it is surprising that these uncertainties have also been passed by the translation unit.

This is completely wrong”, Fraser said.

She added that the lack of awareness of all outstanding problems is questionable.

The Witness said that she would say that there should be two bleach/transliterators of the audio, who would make the transcripts uninflicted and then become another transcript.

Responding to Fazliu's defence questions, the witness said the transcriptor should be trained, experienced in undesirable transcription, and not have information on the investigation.

Fraser said that the transcript should be made by audio hearing rather than rely on another transcript, because otherwise it would be disturbing.

For why it is important to know the transcriptor, the witness said it is necessary to have full transparency for the process.

Furthermore, she said it must be certain that transcriptors/reformers have no interest in the process they engage in, so important is independence.

After the defence, prosecutor Joshua Hafetz, who first focused on hidden records, asked questions, saying that in an article, the expert stressed that these recordings provide important forensic evidence.

Helen Fraser confirmed that he had accepted a court decision on the defence-regulated clarifications required for review.

She said it is not ideal to provide inaccurate transcripts and on their basis to make revisions.