The phase of closing statements in the case against Hashim Thaçi, Bashkim Smakaj, Isni Kilaj, Fadil Fazliu and Hajredin Kuçi has concluded in The Hague. They are accused of criminal offenses against the administration of justice at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers.
Të lidhura
None found
All the defense teams called for acquittal, arguing that the Prosecution had not presented evidence linking their clients to the offenses of which they are accused.
David Young, Fadil Fazliu’s lawyer, said that the entire indictment against his client had been built around two meetings with Remzi Mustafa, held at the “Route 66” café in late June and early July.
Young said the Prosecution had not established what was discussed during those meetings. According to him, Remzi Mustafa, who was one of the parties to the meeting, was not called to testify in court, while neither members of the staff nor customers of the “Route 66” café were questioned.
“In this regard, the Prosecution has no evidence whatsoever of what specifically happened. The Prosecution did not call Mr. Remzi Mustafa, who was one of the parties to this meeting. It did not call any of the staff at Route 66, nor any customer from the Route 66 café. So we do not know what the content of the meetings was.
The only evidence we have before the court concerning what may have been discussed relates to Mr. Fazliu himself, when he explained to Mr. Thaçi that he had held a meeting or that he was going to a meeting at Route 66. That is why they had not done anything about this matter,” Young said.
Hajredin Kuçi’s defense argued that the case against him rested only on “eight simple words” addressed to a longtime friend of 30 years.
“Eight ordinary words, eight simple words addressed to a friend—a friend of 30 years—contain no reference whatsoever to this matter, a conversation after which nothing happened. No witness was contacted, no witness was influenced, no evidence was altered, no procedure was delayed, and no harm was caused. A 55-year-old man with no criminal record, previously unconvicted, who has spent his entire professional life building a legal career,” attorney Alexander Admiral said.
Meanwhile, Joe Holmes, Isni Kilaj’s lawyer, reiterated that the Prosecution had failed to prove any action by his client. He described as crucial the question of whether the alleged offense had remained at the stage of an attempt.
Holmes: Kilaj took no action and there was not even an attempt to act
“But in this case there was no attempt of any kind, nothing. There was one month—one month with no activity at all—which, as we later discovered, led the Prosecution to start inventing new terminology regarding the implementation stage of the criminal offense. As for the danger posed by the offense, according to them, the problem is that Mr. Kilaj was part of a group, but this is a criterion that cannot be met because none of the witnesses they refer to was contacted, nor was any attempt made to contact these witnesses whom the Prosecution claims exist.
With the conclusion of the proceedings and the end of the closing statements, the decision now rests with Judge Christopher Gosnell.
