Case against the administration of justice: closing statements conclude in The Hague

At the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague, the process of presenting closing statements in the trial against Hashim Thaçi, Bashkim Smakaj, Isni Kilaj, Fadil Fazliu and Hajredin Kuçi, accused of criminal offences against the administration of justice, has concluded.

Just like the defences of Thaçi and Smakaj, those of Fazliu, Kuçi and Kilaj said the prosecution has no evidence incriminating their clients in the offences they are charged with, and therefore requested an acquittal.

Fazliu’s lawyer, David Young, insisted that the indictment against his client rests only on two meetings he held with Remzi Mustafa at the end of June and the beginning of July, at the “Route 66” bar.

“Regarding this, the prosecution has no evidence of what actually happened. The prosecution did not even call Mr Remzi Mustafa, who was one of the parties in this meeting. It called none of the Route 66 staff, no client of Route 66. So we do not know what the content of the meetings was.

The only evidence we have in court regarding what may have been discussed has to do with 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 nothing to do with this case,” Young said.

Meanwhile, Hajredin Kuçi’s defence stressed that the entire accusation revolved around “eight simple words” that the accused addressed to an old friend of three decades.

“Eight equal words, eight simple words addressed to a friend whom he knew… to a friend of 30 years, contain no reference to this case — a conversation after which nothing happened. No witness was contacted, no witness was influenced, no evidence was altered, no procedure was delayed, no damage was caused. A 55-year-old man with no criminal record, never punished before, who has spent his entire professional life building a legal stature,” said lawyer Alexander Admiral.

Isni Kilaj’s lawyer, Joe Holmes, reiterated the position that the prosecution has failed to prove any act by his client. According to him, the essence of the debate lies in the claim that the offence remained at the attempt stage.

“But in this case there was no attempt whatsoever, nothing. There was a month, a month with no activity at all, which — as we later discovered — the prosecution began to invent new terminology for regarding the stage of commission of the criminal offence. As for the risk of the criminal offence, 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 claim were contacted, nor was there any attempt to contact these witnesses the prosecution claims.”

After the closing statements ended and the process was concluded, it now remains in the hands of judge Christopher Gosnell to decide the case. /KosovaPress/