(Updated, 11:44 a.m.) - During his testimony in The Hague, Sokol Bashota, on Wednesday faced the questions of the prosecutor Matt Halling regarding the changes he made in his statements about the collaborators and the way the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) behaved towards them.
In one case, Bashota had said that the statements about the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were hypothetical. Meanwhile, the prosecutor requested information from him in case he was asked by the now accused Hashim Thaçi to say this because earlier this witness was also interviewed by his defense team, reports "Betimi per Drejësi".
"What you told Thaçi's defense in 2022 about the situation for associates that was purely hypothetical, wasn't that something that Mr. Thaçi wanted you to tell his defense team," prosecutor Halling asked.
However, the witness's answer was not heard even though the question was repeated by the prosecutor since in one case he did not answer concretely.
"In this courtroom, you said that the signed paragraphs 39 and 43 of the TPNJ were mostly hypothetical and you said something similar in the investigative notes of 2022 that Thaçi's defense read to them. I will read some parts to you: You said that when someone was identified as a collaborator with the Serbs, punitive measures were taken against them in the Operational Zone. In cases where they were caught in the act, while they were carrying out the activity, the person in question would be killed. The General Staff would be notified regarding the concrete punitive measures taken against the person. What you said was a hypothetical situation?", asked the prosecutor first.
Witness Bashota said that there was no information that such things happened during the time he served in the KLA.
"I don't have any information that happened somewhere from the commanders of the areas or from the area itself for such a case", said Bashota.
Prosecutor Halling then went on to tell him that the collaborators could be killed after HQ was notified that they were if they continued their activities.
"In paragraph 43, you said: As for the collaborators with the Serbs, the area commanders acted on the basis of the reports given to them by the soldiers under their command. After the person in question was warned and after the General Staff knew that he was a collaborator of the Serbs, this collaborator could be killed by the KLA command structure in case he continues with his activities. Even what you said was hypothetical?", asked the prosecutor again.
But the witness said that the answer was also hypothetical in this case, since the question itself was like that.
"We don't have a clearly reflected event that happened at that time. The answers are simply hypothetical. The question was hypothetical and the answer was like that," he said.
Halling asked Bashota why he did not say that these parts were conjecture before signing the 2006 interview with the TPNJ, since these parts were read to him verbatim.
"We have repeated it during the preparatory sessions, you also know the pressure I am under and the large number of documents that we browsed that day throughout the day and not knowing the nature of justice procedures well, actually without even a lawyer present, I could not have given a clear focus to this issue at that time and in that state", replied Bashota.
In addition, the prosecutor insisted again, telling the witness that even during the preparatory session he had said that he told the truth about the TPNJ and why he did not say that these paragraphs were hypothetical.
"Witness, during the preparatory session you said that you told the TPNJ the truth and all the corrections you made during the preparatory session were made voluntarily and everything was whitewashed and recorded and you said that you had no corrections for the summary statements except for the transcripts TPNJ. Why didn't you say when you had the opportunity that these paragraphs were hypothetical?", said the prosecutor.
The witness responded by saying that he did not pay much attention to this part.
"That I did not attach importance to it. "Nashta has a lot of other things that he wants to do, but I don't have much time to focus on this," he said.
Also, even at the beginning of his testimony, when the statements were presented to him, Bashota had affirmed that they reflect the truth and exactly what he would say during his testimony. This was again brought into focus by the prosecutor.
"When you started testifying in this courtroom, why did you say that the TPNJ statement reflects exactly what you will say in this courtroom when these paragraphs were just hypothetical situations?", said the prosecutor.
For this, the witness explained his ignorance of the nature and legal terminology. As a result, he insisted that these parts were hypothetical situations.
"I don't know the nature and legal terminology and at what moments these should be used, but really I just answered you correctly that there is a hypothetical situation during this statement that I gave for the Tribunal there", said Bashota.
"Why didn't you say during the five hours that I asked you questions and I asked you questions about the testimony you gave for the TPNJ, why didn't you say that the situations are just hypothetical?", the prosecutor continued.
In response to this, the witness said that he was not asked whether these situations were hypothetical or not when he was interrogated for five hours by the ZPS representative in the courtroom.
"Not all the situations in that statement are hypothetical, but parts of that question and answer were hypothetical. You didn't ask me that question whether or not they were there during those five hours, so it's possible that it didn't occur to me that they told me that," said the prosecutor.
Prosecutor Halling also asked the witness why he had not told the ZSP that he had spoken to Thaci's defense team regarding his testimony.
"Why didn't you mention to the Prosecution that you spoke with Thaçi's defense about aspects that are covered in your testimony?", said the prosecutor.
However, Bashota answered saying that no one asked him about this matter.
Afterwards, the prosecutor presented a preparatory note to the witness, where he said that he had not discussed his testimony with anyone except close family members and no one had asked him about this issue.
"What you told Thaçi's defense in 2022 about the situation for the collaborators that was purely hypothetical, wasn't that something that Mr. Thaçi wanted you to tell his defense team," said the prosecutor.
The witness replied that he considered Thaçi's defense team as an integral part of this court and that they conducted the interview in their office.
"I consider Mr. Thaçi's defense team to be an integral part of this court and I did not think that it is necessary to show the truth that I have discussed with them as well. I have asked a question to the defense of Mr. Thaçi when they invited me if this is within the legal framework of this court and if I can answer this court you tell me as lawyers and as professionals. They have given me guarantees that you can talk to me about what you really know and for us everything is okay. I have not talked to anyone about this issue of Mr. Thaçi, but the interview was done directly in a bar or office where they they have behind and it's over there", he said.
Afterwards, the prosecutor said that he is not trying to say that Thaci's defense was wrong, but that the witness is not answering his question, thus repeating it again.
However, Bashota's answer was not heard, and as a result, the prosecutor asked for a private session, which was approved by the court.
Before all this, the witness was confronted with a statement by William Walker regarding the arrest of Cen Desk and Jakup Kastrati, explaining them as having tied hands when the Serbian journalists were also exchanged.
The witness said that he did not see Cen Desku and Jakup Kastrati in the car with their hands tied, because since the car arrived, Bashota was already at the scene.
As for Sabri Kicmari, he said that they were part of a party together.
"I know him. I met him during the war and he was part of the party that I also met", said Bashota.
The witness said that he does not know what role Kicmari had in the Kosovo People's Movement (LPK).
However, Kicmari had said in an interview that the KLA, in addition to the Serbian army, also fought the people who cooperated with the Serbian authorities, against whom actions were taken. From what prosecutor Halling read, Kiçmari said the procedure was followed by the General Staff.
"He was never in Kosovo during the war. I don't know how many months he talked to me about these issues during the war. Whereas, I stand by what I said during the preparatory session", said Bashota about Kicmar.
The defender of the victims will call his witnesses after the ZPS is finished in the trial against Thaçi and others
The Specialized Chambers of Kosovo (DhSK) in The Hague have decided that the witnesses of the defense of the victims will be called after the hearing of the witnesses of the Office of the Specialized Prosecutor (ZPS), in the court case against Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selim and Jakup Krasniqi.
"The trial court orders that the witnesses of the defense of the victims will be called after the witnesses of the ZPS have finished and after the submissions, arguments and the decision related to the provisions of Rule 130 have been issued and before the witnesses of the defense have started", said presiding judge Charles Smith III.
He also said that all parties have agreed that any request for compensation will be submitted, after the decision regarding the points of the indictment has been made, and as a result he gave such an order, reports "Oath of Justice".
"Any request for damages shall be submitted after the decision has been made on all counts of the indictment," said Smith.
Before that, the court at the beginning of the session said that some oral orders will be given before the witness Sokol Bashota comes. However, the first order was made in private session to the public. And in the public session, a material evidence was accepted, which was used with this witness, as well as with the other witness.
Likewise, the admission into evidence of a document which the ZPS had argued was from the LPK, which talks about the tactics, the intelligence that is claimed to have been taken from the Serbian forces in Kosovo and given to the TPNJ, was opposed. of.
The defense had objected to this document regarding non-compliance with the rules related to authenticity, authorship and provenance.
Mainly, the other orders also dealt with the admission and rebuttal of some other material evidence.
In this session, all the accused are present in the courtroom.
The Office of the Specialized Prosecutor, on September 30, 2022, submitted the confirmed amended indictment against Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Jakup Krasniqi and Rexhep Selim, which consists of ten counts, where the latter are charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
On April 29, 2022, the Prosecutor's Office of Specialized had submitted an amended indictment against Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selim and Jakup Krasniqi, where it is claimed that the four accused have committed war crimes in Gjilan, Budakovo and Semetishte.
On November 9, 2020, in their first appearances, Jakup Krasniqi and Hashim Thaçi pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. Veseli stated the same in his appearance on November 10, as did Rexhep Selimi on November 11.
The indictment against Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi was confirmed on October 26, 2020./BetimipreDrejteşi
Thaçi reacts after the statements were read to him where it was assumed that Bashota was responsible for the KLA communiqués
When Sokol Bashota was confronted with the statements of Hashim Thaçi and Rexhep Selim, where they had mentioned the witness as being responsible for KLA communiqués for a period of time, the accused Thaçi raised his hand asking to consult his defense.
After the consultation, Thaçi's defense, represented by lawyer Luka Mishetiq, asked the judge to read the entire transcript showing that Thaçi had mentioned the word 'suppose'.
According to judge Mettraux, Rexhep Selimi told the ZPS in 2019 that Nait Hasani was involved with the communiques until 97 and after his fall in prison Sokol Bashota. Whereas, after this period, according to what the judge said, Rexhep Selimi said that since April 98, the spokesperson of the KLA, Jakup Krasniqi and Hashim Thaçi had been taken.
"I remember that with the communiqués - one of the persons who dealt with the communiqués in 1997 is Sokol Bashota, but the communiqués were drafted mainly in one of the bodies called 'Voice of Kosovo'. In April 1998, we officially appointed a spokesperson who then dealt with the communiqués and the first public appearances on television, which was Jakup Krasniqi, meanwhile assisted and supported by Hashim Thaçi, who took over a little later communication with the public and continued until the end for approximately", said the judge during the reading of Selim's statement.
Likewise, Selimi had said that he did not know which of the communiques was written by one and which by the other. However, Bashota denied writing these KLA communiqués.
"I repeat that I did not write any communiqué. I don't know what Mr. Selimi's idea is to answer like this, but I am saying once again that I have not written any communique. Then I wrote sometime, for opinion I had definitely accepted it", he said, adding that he himself had no role related to the communiques.
The witness was then presented a statement by Thaçi in 2020 for the ZPS where, according to the judge, he had said that Jashar Salihu was responsible for the communications in 96.
"I heard about Jashar Salihu only after the war, it seems that he was in the Vendlindja Thrêrret Fund in the west, but I don't have any detailed information about his commitment", said Bashota.
In addition, according to the judge after the arrest of Nait Hasan, Thaçi had said that he does not know exactly, but these functions in terms of communications were exercised by two people; Bashota and Xheladin Gashi.
"The next question that was asked to Thaçi is this: Does Nait Hhsani have any role? Answer; If he was in charge, he was the leader of the Operational Headquarters in Kosovo. Questions; in 96? Answer; yes. Questions; After Hasan's arrest in January 97, who was responsible for the communications? Answer; to tell the truth, I was in Switzerland at that time and I don't know exactly, but the responsibility remained at that time of Sokol Bashota's operational commitments, but with a strong emphasis on Xheladin Gashi", said the chief judge.
Bashota claimed that after the arrest of Nait Hasan, for a period only he and Xheladin Gashi were in Kosovo, but that he did not deal with the communications himself.
"Can you explain to us why both Mr. Selimi and Mr. When Thaçi was asked a question, they said that you were one of the persons responsible for the communiques. Do you have anything to say about that?” said the judge.
Without giving the witness space to answer, he was immediately asked to leave the room because Thaçi raised his hand after wanting to consult his lawyer.
"I have to consult with my client and then I will say something", said lawyer Luka Mishetiq.
As a result, Mishetiq requested that the entire transcript be read to the witness.
“The client and I would say the same thing actually. It is right that if we ask this question to the witness, what has been said should be explicitly told to him and read the corresponding communique. At the bottom of the page, a specific question was asked and it says; to assume; he says he doesn't know. Show him the clear and complete transcript", said Mishetiq.
Then the witness returned to the courtroom again with the question that remained in half after the transcript of Thaçi's interview regarding this case was read to him.
"I am being asked to guess what they wanted to tell me, but I think that what I say is more relevant in the sense that here it is about the first person singular and what I know. I am aware of this that I am saying under oath, I did not write the communiques from the first to the last. Therefore, I don't know the reasons for the assumption they gave, but one could be a reason for the very fact that I was in Kosovo. The only member of the Staff who remained in Kosovo. Maybe they referred to this, but since I wrote communiques, this is never true", said Bashota.
In addition to Judge Mettraux, the witness was questioned by Judge Fergal Gaynor as well as Luka Mishetiq representing Thaçi.
It is worth noting that the testimony of this witness will continue on Thursday where it is expected to end./Oath for Justice
