The defense of the former President of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, along with his co-defendants, is expected to submit a motion on Monday to dismiss several counts of the indictment at the Specialist Chambers in The Hague.
Regarding this process, the lawyer licensed at the Specialist Court, Artan Çerkini, emphasized that this procedure marks a new and important step for the justice system involving Kosovo citizens.
He added that, although the Specialist Chambers are de jure considered part of Kosovo’s judicial system, the procedures conducted there are fundamentally different from those applied in the Republic of Kosovo.
“According to this procedure, the Prosecution completes the presentation of its case, introduces all documentary evidence, and hears all witnesses. Only after this phase does the defense have the opportunity to submit a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Prosecution’s evidence does not meet the necessary standard to declare the defendants guilty on the respective counts,” Çerkini stated for RTK.
He further explained that at this stage, the court may decide to dismiss some or all of the charges. If any part of the indictment is thrown out, it will not be addressed in the remainder of the trial. However, if some charges remain, then the defense will have the opportunity to present counter-evidence in an effort to challenge them during the final stage of the trial.
Çerkini stated that all legal conditions have now been met for the conditional release of former President Hashim Thaçi and his co-defendants.
Furthermore, he emphasized that pretrial detention is the most severe form of ensuring a defendant’s presence during criminal proceedings and that there are lighter alternatives which should be considered, especially in the advanced stages of the process.
“I believe that all legal conditions for conditional release have now been fulfilled, because detention is the harshest measure to ensure a defendant’s presence in a criminal procedure. Apart from detention, there are also alternative measures. The more the procedure advances, the more security measures should be eased,” Çerkini said.
According to him, the Prosecution’s main argument for keeping the defendants in detention has been the risk of witness interference, but this risk no longer exists.
“The only argument the Prosecution had was to keep the defendants in detention due to the risk of influencing witnesses. That risk no longer exists, since the Prosecution has completed presenting its case and its witnesses have been heard. Consequently, there is no longer any possibility to influence the Prosecution’s witnesses,” he added.
Lawyer Çerkini stressed that for these reasons, pretrial detention should have been replaced with lighter security measures, such as house arrest.
