A hearing was held at the Basic Court in Pristina regarding the use of tear gas in the Assembly of Kosovo.
On Thursday, the accused Fitore Pacolli Dalipi, Salih Zyba, and Drita Millaku appeared in court. They are charged with activating tear gas canisters on 21 March 2018, from around 12:10 until 15:40.
In opening statements, the defense of Salih Zyba, lawyer Hasan Jashari, said that political actions are not criminal offences and that “the smoke used in the Assembly of Kosovo was used to achieve a political objective.”
“The question is whether the smoke used by Mr Zyba falls within the category of weapons; therefore, the expert has the obligation to provide an opinion and finding on this matter, and by no means to interpret legal provisions or determine whether he is guilty. As the defense, we consider that the smoke used in the hall of the Parliament of Kosovo was used solely to achieve a political objective, to prevent a decision from being taken by the deputies of the Parliament of Kosovo, a decision which we believe would have been harmful to our country, where 25 percent of the territory would have been taken from our country based on that decision. I consider that political action is not a criminal offence,” the lawyer of Zyba said.
The lawyer of Fitore Pacolli, Lavdrim Salihu, also said that the indictment is incomplete regarding the time aspect of when the offence was allegedly committed.
He further told the court that “the indictment is also based on unfounded evidence.”
The prosecutor Valdrin Krasniqi opposed the defense’s request for appointing an expert, stating that the expert report is sufficiently clear.
“I oppose the request for appointing an expert, considering that the expert report mentioned above is sufficiently clear, and it confirms that the defendants on 21.03.2018 used a weapon, in this case an irritant gas as defined by the Law on Weapons. The reason for the objection is that this report is also supported by other material evidence, such as the crime scene inspection report, video recordings that have been proposed and administered as evidence in this trial, as well as the decision of the Presidency of the Assembly of Kosovo dated 21 March 2018, which imposed a disciplinary measure on the defendants present here, namely a ban from participating in the extraordinary parliamentary session,” he said.
This request from the defense lawyer was also rejected by the trial panel.
The defense of Fitore Pacolli, lawyer Lavdrim Salihu, also raised objections regarding the prosecution’s material evidence.
“As for report 04/2-1I/023/2019 proposed as an expert report, it should be declared inadmissible and separated from the case file as an uninterpretable piece of evidence under Article 19, because it is not known who prepared this report, which, if read as evidence, would prevent us from proposing its author as a witness or expert—evidence that would be exculpatory or would demonstrate the unreliability of the evidence. As for the decision of the Assembly Presidency, it cannot serve as evidence because the Assembly Presidency is not a competent body to assess the elements of a criminal offence, which is why we are, of course, before the court,” he said.
Objections to the prosecutor’s statements were also raised by the defendant Salih Zyba.
“His statement in the opening remarks was ‘the legislator has foreseen’, now he is challenging that legislator, not the consequence, but our very existence… And it was contradictory because in the last sentence he said ‘the same persons during that session have committed and disciplinary measures were taken’, which implies that the legislator has regulated both when it is considered a criminal offence and when, in this case, it is considered a disciplinary violation. If it had been a criminal offence, then a disciplinary measure would contradict the norms,” Zyba said.
He also, like his lawyer, said that the case file lacks expert analysis. Zyba referred to the prosecution at the time as “captured.”
The prosecutor Valdrin Krasniqi requested that Zyba be warned by the trial panel.
The lawyers proposed reviewing video recordings from the date when the alleged criminal offence was committed.
The next hearing will continue with the review of video recordings, for which Judge Sabit Sadikaj decided to postpone the session for an indefinite period, and it may be held in a courtroom equipped for displaying such evidence from the prosecution.
