The President of the Specialist Chambers, Ekaterina Trendafilova, has addressed the ongoing trial process in The Hague, explicitly mentioning the protest by KLA veterans that led to the cancellation of her planned conference in Pristina.
According to Trendafilova, the protest demonstrated that the European Union was right to hold the trials against former KLA leaders outside of Kosovo. On May 13, she had intended to speak about developments in the Specialist Chambers concerning the trial of Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Jakup Krasniqi, and Rexhep Selimi. However, protests by Kosovo Liberation Army veterans forced a change of plans. Trendafilova discussed these events in an interview with Radio Television of Kosovo.
Trendafilova justified the cancellation of the conference in Pristina, stating that she could not tolerate violence. “The press conference was cancelled on the recommendation of the Kosovo Police. Despite my sincere commitment to meet journalists in person, I cannot do so if anyone’s safety is at risk. I do not tolerate violence during a press conference intended to openly inform the people of Kosovo about us. This hostility, which aimed to obstruct a peaceful and transparent meeting and discussion, further explains and justifies why Kosovo and the EU agreed for these trials to be conducted outside Kosovo. It is regrettable to see a lack of respect for the rule of law,” Trendafilova stated.
She also commented on criticisms regarding the judicial process against Thaçi and others, asserting that accusations of injustice are unfounded. “I would describe the process as safe for witnesses, although there have been attempts to influence or intimidate witnesses. I believe the Court is administering justice fairly, impartially, and independently. Regarding the criticisms in the Kosovo media that you mentioned, I have noted them and taken those critical comments very seriously. For example, it has been falsely stated that a person cannot be held in pre-trial detention for longer than one year,” Trendafilova clarified.
The President of the Chambers also spoke about the accused’s request for provisional release, which was denied despite the completion of the prosecution’s witness testimonies. “The judges are completely independent in their decisions, and no one can interfere in their decision-making. You are referring to previous decisions regarding requests for provisional release, for which the judges of a trial panel made decisions based on an assessment of whether there was a risk of flight, interference with witnesses, or commission of other criminal offenses. To date, all three judges have concluded that release should not be granted, based on the assessment of these risks,” Trendafilova explained.
When asked about the investigation of the four individuals in The Hague, Trendafilova stated that they are being tried as individuals, not as an organization. “The Specialist Chambers deal only with the investigation and prosecution of individuals in relation to alleged unlawful acts by them, meaning their individual criminal responsibility. Therefore, the Specialist Chambers hold only individuals accountable, not organizations. This means that if KLA members are mentioned in the courtroom as individuals who allegedly committed criminal offenses, this concerns only the persons as individuals and not the entire organization,” Trendafilova said.
Regarding the timeline for a first-instance verdict in this trial, Trendafilova did not provide a specific deadline. “As for your question about the conclusion of the trial, it is still too early to predict when the judgment in this case will be delivered. The defense teams have announced that they will submit a joint request for the dismissal of the charges, and we need to wait to see what the trial panel will decide on their request. Subsequently, depending on the outcome of the request, if the charges are not dismissed, the Victims’ Counsel is expected to present their evidence and arguments, which will last approximately one week,” she concluded.
On June 2, the defense was scheduled to submit a motion for the dismissal of indictment points, but this deadline was postponed due to the trial panel’s acceptance of some new evidence from the Prosecution.
