Hashim Thaci’s lawyer, Luka Mesetic, stated that the Special Prosecutor’s Office (SPO) has not provided any evidence showing that communications or public statements led to or had an effect on the alleged crimes in the indictment, KosovaPress reports.

Mesetic cited the case of Vojislav Seselj, who, after a statement in Vojvodina, was linked to a cleansing of Croats there. Referring to this, he said the SPO has failed to show any comparable case where communications resulted in crimes.

“We are saying that they must prove something—they must prove that the statements translated into effect, that they had at least some causal impact on one of the crimes in the indictment; otherwise, we are speaking theoretically about whether statements influenced crimes… There must be sufficient evidence to conclude a significant contribution. We cite Seselj as an example to make the distinction: you call it incitement; we call it significant contribution. In Seselj’s case, he was involved in Croatia and Bosnia, and acquitted except for one incident in Vojvodina, where a speech he gave was followed the next day by a cleansing of Croats. That is one isolated incident. In the SPO cases, no link has been shown between a communication and subsequent crimes. There is no proof that a few days after a statement someone read it in the morning press and committed a crime because of it,” he said.

This response came after Judge Christopher Barthe asked about the defense’s claim that the SPO had not demonstrated a connection between UCK statements and the alleged crimes in the indictment.

“You argue that the SPO has not demonstrated a link between UCK public statements and the crimes alleged in the indictment. Even if incitement is a form of criminal liability, a causal link must be established between the alleged public statements and the crimes that resulted. To be clear, you are not claiming that the form of criminal liability for incitement was proven by the prosecution, orally or in writing, and that it influenced any direct decisions by the leadership,” he said.

Judge Guenawl Mettraux also questioned the prosecution on whether it properly understood the SPO indictment.

“You ask the court to find guilt regarding each of the 10 charges in the indictment, but you do not ask the court to find guilt for individual incidents relevant to those charges,” he asked.

Prosecutor Nathan Quick responded that the court should examine each individual incident, but the counts are for the ten crimes.

“The crimes are based on individual incidents. Certainly, each incident should be reviewed, but the counts are tied to these ten crimes,” he said.

Regarding Judge Mettraux’s question about what constitutes a non-state armed group and whether chaos justifies arbitrary detention or execution without due process, Prosecutor James Pace denied that it does.

“The chaos of war does not justify arbitrary detention—no,” he said.