In the trial of the “Thaci 2” case in The Hague, Bashkim Smakaj’s defense counsel, Jonathan Reese, regarding the document presented as evidence by the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office — a conversation with Bislim Zyrapi allegedly aimed at interfering with his testimony — said that the evidence must show that the so-called electronic file, the “Smakaj document,” could not have been printed without passing through the hands of a detention officer.
Reese stated that Smakaj did not hold discussions with Zyrapi regarding his testimony in case six and did not show him any documents related to it.
“Smakaj has chosen to inform the prosecution how he will defend himself in this trial — that despite having been friends with Bislim Zyrapi and meeting him regularly, he did not hold discussions regarding his testimony in case six and did not show him any document related to it… One of the aspects addressed is the absence of fingerprints or forensic analysis on the so-called Smakaj document. In fact, you will hear evidence that on December 6, 2023, the prosecution informed the forensic firm conducting the work that it did not request any fingerprint or DNA verification regarding the document. The SPO made no subsequent request for fingerprint analysis. From the beginning of this investigation, the prosecution made it clear that it did not need DNA or fingerprints,” Rees said.
Reese said the prosecution must provide an explanation as to how the document ended up in the hands of the SPO, how it reached them from a detention officer, and according to him, if it was found in Smakaj’s vehicle, then it was deliberately placed there by the SPO.
“If the prosecution can prove that the origin of this document was an electronic file within the detention unit, of which Smakaj had no knowledge, then we must see that from the evidence. The evidence must show that this electronic file could not be printed without passing through the hands of a detention officer. I am not blaming anyone, but these are the defense arguments. We need an alternative explanation as to how the document ended up in the hands of the SPO, how it came from a detention officer, and if it was in Smakaj’s vehicle, then it was deliberately placed there by the SPO in order to attribute it to Smakaj,” Reese said.
Reese added that exhibit P00128, the testimony of an anonymous person, shows that the profile was used by both detainees and detention officers, and that there is no evidence proving who printed the document for the lawyers.
“The only evidence we will see is exhibit P00128, the only evidence being the testimony of an anonymous person in this case, and you will hear that the account or profile was one used by both detainees and detention officers. There is no evidence proving who printed the document for the lawyers,” Reese said.
Following Smakaj’s defense counsel, the opening statement in the Thaci 2 case will be delivered by Isni Kilaj’s defense counsel, Ian Edwards.
