The defense team of Rexhep Selimi, former Minister of Public Order, continued presenting counterarguments at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague, asserting that the prosecution has failed to substantiate key claims regarding his role.
Selimi’s attorney, Eric Tully, told the court that the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (ZPS) made no effort to demonstrate that the Ministry of Public Order, led by Selimi, was a structure capable of exercising operational control over a nationwide police force.
“ZPS has not undertaken even the minimum necessary to verify the complex organizational structures outlined in their charts. At no point have they linked these organizational diagrams to specific individuals. They have produced no evidence to prove that these structures were real or that Selimi was in command. ZPS has not attempted in any way to show that the Ministry of Public Order could exercise operational control over a police force throughout the country. Consequently, this argument is entirely unsupported,” Tully said.
The lawyer emphasized that the absence of documentation itself suggests there was no well-organized structure under the Ministry of Public Order during the relevant period.
Tully also highlighted the lack of orders or directives issued by Selimi, noting that in the context of June 1999—outside of active conflict in Kosovo—any operational role would have required formal instructions from the minister to subordinate officers.
“We have not seen a single order, directive, or communication issued by Selimi, either directly or on his behalf, to any police unit in any region of Kosovo,” he said.
The defense further challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s sole witness claiming knowledge of orders issued by Selimi in his capacity as head of Public Order, identified in court as Witness 04 748. According to Tully, even the witness’s family described him as dishonest.
“This witness was not part of the UÇK at the time, let alone the Ministry of Public Order. He had no personal knowledge of how UÇK functioned in 1999 and falsely claimed awareness of secret arrangements between KFOR and police units. During cross-examination, he admitted he had no direct knowledge of any orders issued by the police in the summer of 1999,” Tully explained.
The defense’s presentation underscores their argument that Selimi had no operational authority over police forces and that the prosecution has failed to provide credible evidence linking him to any command or oversight role
