The Office of the Specialist Prosecutor has no evidence proving that Kadri Veseli had effective control over anyone in Kosovo, nor is there proof supporting the alleged communications.

This was stated by Veseli’s lawyer, Rodney Dixon, following a question from the judge at the Specialist Chambers.

“Legal obligations do not disappear by themselves due to distance, but we must consider and focus on whether this had any practical impact. We said the Prosecution must prove that my client actually had a commanding role and control over anyone in Kosovo for such an obligation to arise… He had no effective control over anyone in Kosovo, and practically speaking, it’s impossible to prove that any communications occurred. You’re asking if there is evidence we could provide… There is no proof that such communications or connections existed. This is a major gap in the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (SPO); it’s a gap that the prosecution must fill,” he said.

Meanwhile, prosecutor Matthew Holing challenged Veseli’s defense, emphasizing that evidence shows Veseli gave instructions even when he was not in Kosovo.

“What the defense doesn’t understand is that in the early months Kadri Veseli was more active, because from the testimony we received, we saw that he gave instructions even while he was not in Kosovo,” he said.

In addition to questions for Veseli’s defense, Judge Guenawl Mattraux also asked preliminary questions regarding Hashim Thaci.

Thaci’s defense, represented by lawyer Luka Misetic, responded regarding SPO witness Bislim Zyrapi. They noted that although the SPO alleges Zyrapi was not part of the alleged Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE), he was involved everywhere.

This response followed Judge Mattraux’s question about Zyrapi’s testimony.

“Admissions from Zyrapi given in prior testimony should influence the credibility and reliability that the court must give to his testimony regarding the existence of a prior agreement to commit crimes,” he said.

Thaci’s lawyer, Misetic, emphasized that the burden of proof rests entirely with the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office and that it is not the court’s or defense’s duty to fill in the SPO’s gaps.

“The burden of proof lies solely with the prosecution… It is not the duty of the court or the defense to fill in the gaps in their evidence. So my initial response is this: they claim he was not part of the alleged JCE, and that JCE members tried to erase his actions. The evidence cited should not have an impact; even if you argue it does, the SPO has maintained that Zyrapi was not part of the JCE and was left out of the common criminal purpose—yet he was involved everywhere,” he said.