The proceedings conducted before the Specialist Chambers in The Hague reveal significant deficiencies in their compliance with fundamental rights, according to a letter from the Ombudsperson, Naim Qelaj, addressed to the President of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague, Ekaterina Trendafilova.

He expressed concern over the rejection of “procedural and evidentiary requests submitted by defence counsel.”

In this letter, Qelaj also mentions the acceptance of certain evidence from Serbia, reports KosovaPress.

“Equally troubling is the manner in which certain evidence has been admitted. By way of illustration, I note two examples. First, I have observed the admission of official documents purportedly originating from Serbian authorities claiming to have exercised jurisdiction over territory in Kosovo after June 1999. This period corresponds to the establishment of an international interim administration authorised by the United Nations Security Council, during which the operation of Serbian judicial institutions in Kosovo was unlawful under international law, as clearly established by decisions of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. The admission of such documents therefore raises serious concerns regarding both their legality (including under public international law, and not only under the Constitution) and evidentiary reliability,” the letter to Trendafilova states.

Furthermore, Qelaj emphasizes in the letter that it is “concerning, to observe a court that has rejected nearly all procedural and evidentiary requests submitted by defence counsel.”

“Such a consistent pattern raises legitimate concerns of procedural imbalance and potential bias, which may seriously undermine the credibility of the proceedings and call into question the impartial treatment of the accused.” it continues.

Qelaj’s letters to Trendafilova also highlight the way the Specialist Chambers handle pre-trial detention.

“The continued practice of maintaining all accused persons in prolonged and uninterrupted custody, without meaningful consideration of alternative measures, appears incompatible with both the applicable statutory framework and established standards derived from the jurisprudence of international and domestic courts. The assessment of flight risk as uniformly "high", as advanced by the Prosecution and consistently endorsed by the Chambers, lacks persuasive justification, particularly given that all accused have voluntarily surrendered and that there is no credible evidence suggesting a risk of interference with witnesses (also bearing in mind that a significant presence of the EULEX Mission remains in Kosovo). Moreover, the monitoring of communications and family visits, the restriction of family visits, and other associated limitations during prolonged pre-trial detention raise serious concerns regarding violations of fundamental rights. I find it difficult to reconcile such an inflexible detention regime with the principles governing deprivation of liberty under international criminal justice standards,” Qelaj states.

Below is the full letter from the Ombudsperson: