Hashim Thaci’s defense strongly criticized the arguments of the Special Prosecution, saying it has no evidence to support its claims and that its reasoning relies on a patchwork of documents.
Misetic said that Thaci was not involved in the preparation of communications and that the Special Prosecution presented no evidence to prove otherwise.
“Thaci was not involved in the preparation or dissemination of communications and public statements. We have also shown that there is no evidence of any temporal or geographic link between any communication and the crimes charged in the indictment. It was striking that in its rebuttal, the Special Prosecution could not clearly explain the evidence it relies on to prove a connection. Even today, we do not know which of Thaci’s statements are supposedly linked to the alleged crimes in the indictment. Instead of giving an answer, they cited numbers of material evidence, not because of lack of time but intentionally… The Special Prosecution has no evidence to support its argument; the documents themselves are so weak that even referring to them only weakens its case further. At best, the Special Prosecution’s arguments are a patchwork of documents left for you to piece together,” he said.
Misetic also noted that the Special Prosecution continues to claim that international witnesses were not informed about KLA communications.
“The Special Prosecution continues to claim that international actors were not informed of KLA documents and communications, citing, among other things, witness Clark’s testimony. But if you recall Clark’s testimony regarding three October meetings with Milosevic, he said that Milosevic was informed that NATO would bomb his country if he did not stop hostilities against Kosovo. Clearly, Milosevic was aware of the communications, since at the end of the day Kosovo was just a province of the former Yugoslavia,” Misetic said.
Thaci’s lawyer also argued that the Special Prosecution is changing how it presents evidence to fill gaps.
“The Special Prosecution noticed the gaps in the last week when the defense submitted evidence. Now it is changing how evidence is presented to fill the blocks… The Special Prosecution should have given the necessary explanations, and we do not understand how it reconciles its statements. On one hand, it claims Zyrapi was an outsider, and on the other, that he was present at all meetings, yet it does not explain how Zyrapi would be excluded from the joint criminal purpose if it existed,” he said.
