Social Democrat Initiative Chairman Fatmir Limaj has sharply criticised the court’s work in the trial process against former KLA leaders in The Hague.
At a panel discussion with the topic of Kosovo after September 16th, Limaj has expressed his concern about the way the judicial process develops, questioning the judiciary’s impartiality and integrity.
He has said that in a trial process, the judge should be neutral and guarantee the equality of the parties, while the burden of evidence belongs to the prosecution.
For the accused, there is nothing more important than following a court of justice that provides assurances, that the law is being implemented, that it is capable of integrity. What I’ve seen in this case is that the juro in the justice system what’s judged four, the burden of evidence belongs to the prosecution, the one who accuses you, the judge is silent, the court is silent, he’s neutral, he balances, he listens to facts and evidence on the sides, the defence on one side and the prosecution on the other. The judge never takes an active role toward one or the other. Predisposed more to the court, defending the accused’s right than helping the prosecutor in the courtroom, Limaj has declared.
Limaj has claimed that during the trial process at The Hague, the court has been very active in questions against witnesses, comparing this to the prosecution’s role. In this court process, anyone who submitted has seen a court of law which, for me, has been a shock, which has been an extended hand, has been active during the trial process in prosecution, interrogation and the prosecution itself. There are 74 hours of judges who have asked questions, 74 hours in the judicial process have been active in the judicial process, and their questions have been questions of the prosecutor. Where he left, the judge has continued, twice as many as the prosecutor, Limaj has declared.
He has also cited his experience in the court process in The Hague, saying that during his two years of trial, the court had asked only seven questions, which he said had been in favour of protection.
To illustrate an example of this, in my case in The Hague, for two years of trial, seven questions have been asked by the court, the court in my case, for two years only seven questions, the seven questions have been in favor of protection. The investigation the court has had in the direction of the courtroom has been the seven questions in favour of defence, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. He has not allowed the prosecution to go beyond rules and standards, he has added.
According to Limaj, in the process against former KLA leaders it is difficult to distinguish the prosecutor’s role from that of the judge, which, according to him, undermines the principle of arms equality.
In the case here, you’ve had a problem with who the prosecutor is, who is the judge, and that also shows a lack of the integrity of this judge. This now harms so-called arms equality. The equality of weapons is when both sides have the opportunity and the equal right to demonstrate their own evidence, their own protection, or their accusations before the court. And to be the equality of weapons guaranteed is that jury that guarantees equal rights, and that jury doesn’t take sides in the court process of neither side. The other that has been missing in this judicial process is the standard of testing. Tomorrow you’ve learned the law practice here, it’s very important evidence. It’s the basis, it’s the heart of a whole court process you have led tomorrow, Limaj said among other things.
The signal where the truth speaks before the news!
Source Layer: Signal