Defense: Presence where people were detained does not prove that Krasniqi was aware of detention and mistreatment

In presenting his closing argument for Jakup Krasniqi, lawyer Aidan Ellis said that the presence of the former Speaker of the Assembly in places where he was detained does not prove that he was aware of the crimes alleged in the indictment. 

“In the final file, the prosecution wrongly attempts to link Mr. Krasniqi’s presence at several alleged crime scenes to the commission of the crimes without providing a single piece of evidence that he personally saw him detained at any location or that his presence contributed in any way to the commission of the crimes. In paragraph 581, the prosecution alleges that Mr. Krasniqi’s field visits were often conducted near a location or during a period of time when the crimes were committed. So they imply that there may be a connection, but without giving us the basis for it and without giving us the basis for his presence contributing to the commission of the crimes. Simply saying ‘he was present’ cannot be claimed to be evidence,” Ellis said. 

Attorney Ellis also mentioned the Specialist Prosecutor's Office's claim that Krasniqi met Lahi Brahimaj, who was convicted of war crimes by the Hague Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. However, according to him, the prosecution has not proven his knowledge of the crimes committed by Brahimaj.  

"As for Jabllanica, initially, the claim is that Mr. Krasniqi visited Lahi Brahimaj in 1998 and in July and that it was widely known that Brahimaj controlled the place where people were being held. The control of a building or a facility is not the problem, the problem is what evidence is there that Mr. Krasniqi knew at the time that crimes were being committed there and according to us, there is no evidence. There is no evidence that the communications in July 98 served to inform Mr. Krasniqi and no concrete evidence has been provided that he actually had information regarding this," he said.

VIDEO:

Krasniqi's defense attorney told the court that weak argumentation on the part of the SPO is also seen in the claims that the defendant was aware of the crimes committed in Bajgora. 

also Arberi 5 months ago Ellis: There is no evidence that Krasniqi was present at the arrest of Blerim Kuçi

"As for Bajgora, the same thing. Mr. Krasniqi was part of a delegation that visited the Llapi Zone in August 1998, but the prosecution does not prove that he went to the detention centers or that Mr. Krasniqi was informed about the detention of persons. In fact, paragraph 56 alleges that Krasniqi also passed through Bajgora during this visit. This is not enough to conclude that he had knowledge of the detention of persons there," Ellis said. 

The defendants' defense attorneys have repeatedly pointed out that the SPO is trying to convince the court through the "association argument." But according to them, this type of argument is untenable since their presence and even meetings with KLA members throughout Kosovo is not sufficient proof that they were aware of the crimes alleged in the indictment.