|
ALBIN KURTI'S TRIAL I do not accept this panel of judges
because:
1) You are not impartial – as I will explain, the case
proceedings show that you are favoring the prosecution and
already presuming that I am guilty.
2) You are endorsing the discrimination and procedural
irregularities in this case violating my fundamental rights
and freedoms.
3) You are not independent – you are appointed by and have
sworn your oaths before the SRSG and UNMIK, both of whom are
listed as offended and prosecuting parties in this case.
More concretely, my rejection is based on the following:
First of all, I object to this panel evoking the principle of
impartiality enshrined in the European Convention on Human
Rights (EDHR), Art 6.1; the right to a fair trial, Art 6 of
the same declaration, and Art 10 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR); as well as the principle of presuming
innocence until proven guilty enshrined in Art 11 of the same
declaration.
As the International Helsinki Federation (IHF) has pointed
out, the legal proceedings in this case seem to favor the
prosecution. The partiality of the court became evident
already during the case’s initial phase when the judge
approached the prosecutor without my presence and asked: “WHAT
DO YOU WANT ME TO DO NEXT”. Amnesty International (AI) has
reaffirmed that international judges in Kosova tend to favor
the prosecution and that impartiality is not even attempted.
By being here, each of you judges show consent to the
indictment and approval of a number of false and biased
premises and allegations, indicating that you already have
made up your minds about me. It appears that the trial already
happened and you already have reached your verdict – guilty:
For example, while the indictment states that “Mr Kurti is not
criminally responsible for those deaths caused by the actions
of the police” on February 10th, both the prosecution and
judges in this case have consistently and from the beginning
implied that I am responsible. Special Prosecutor Robert
Dean’s interim report of April 17 clarified that Romanian
policemen were responsible for the deaths on the 10th, and his
final report of July 2 identifies a breakdown in the chain of
police command and unclear operational responsibilities as
additional causes. Despite this, on 13th of February the
prosecution refers to the danger of me “organizing another
violent protest leading to loss of lives”. Incredibly, four
months later, on 13th June – notably two months after the
interim Dean report and nine days after the indictment says I
am not responsible for the deaths – Judge Peralta continues to
link my alleged crimes to the deaths.
On February 13 the prosecution alleges, and the judge accepts
that I represent “a pattern of activities” that is to “cause
danger and damage to property and lives”, and that this
pattern “is getting worse and worse”. This offensive claim is
made without explaining what my alleged “pattern” consists of
– I have never hurt or been accused of hurting anyone ever
before in my life. Nor have I ever caused general danger or
damaged property on a large scale. By making this misleading
allegation, the prosecution is falsely portraying my previous
activities, and using this false image to prejudice my
character and predict my future actions.
An utterly false premise for the indictment is to draw
conclusions about my actions, even guilt, based on my presumed
guilt in the demonstration on November 28 2006. This link is
sometimes made directly by the prosecution, sometimes
indirectly. I have not been tried, certainly not sentenced or
proven guilty for anything related to the November
demonstration. Even according to the standards of your system,
this event cannot be used as “proof” in this case.
My second reason for rejecting this panel of judges is that by
being here, you approve of the discrimination and numerous
irregularities in the case proceedings against me. The
proceedings have violated the right to equality before law,
enshrined in Art 7 of the UDHR; freedom from arbitrary arrest
and detention, Art 9 of the same declaration; the principle of
presumption of innocence until proven guilty, Art 11; and the
right to just detention and a fair trial, Art 9 and 14 of the
ICCPR.
I am not represented here by anyone but myself. My so-called
defence council Ahmet Hasolli is appointed by you, and I do
not recognise him. The case material suggests that this
non-recognition is mutual, and that Hasolli’s commitment to me
and my case is weak: he was absent from the examination of
several key witnesses, in other examinations he leaves
half-way through, and the few times he is present he poses
very few, and feeble, questions. Additionally, this violates
the equality of arms principle.
AI has repeatedly, since February 15 expressed concern that
the hearings in my case have been closed to the public, that
they initially took place without charges being declared, and
that I was not allowed to attend them. While I was in
detention, IHF was denied access to visit me, while another
human rights organisation (CDHRF) was allowed to visit,
however only once monthly. Other people, like William Walker,
were immediately allowed to visit me to put pressure on me to
not organise more demonstrations.
The IHF has been concerned about the legal basis for my
pretrial detention. Significantly, there appears to be no
justification for the severe restrictions of my house arrest.
I am the first person in eight years who is detained in house
arrest with two 24-hour police guards outside the door. In the
first house arrest, I was not only denied movement outside my
home, but also contact with media, VETeVENDOSJE! activists and
all other people except three of my four family members. These
restrictions violated my right to a just detention (Art 9.3,
ICCPR), as well as my freedom of speech and association. As AI
has pointed out, detention under such strict conditions,
especially before I was charged, was tantamount to deprivation
of liberty.
As pointed out by the IHF, it is unclear why I have been
categorised as an “A” prisoner. Even more serious is the fact
that I (nor my so-called lawyer) was informed about this
categorisation and its implications. This violates the
equality of arms principle. I am not allowed to appeal the
decision, as I am not allowed to appeal the final verdict in
this case, not even to the European Court.
Most important, I should have been judged by my own peers. You
international judges have little or no knowledge of Kosova’s
politics and culture, the history of demonstrations here and
their political effects, or our post-war society. Nor are you
familiar with my own decade-long non-violent struggle for
freedom from Serbia and my coherent political platform. You
are foreigners also to my history, and the history of my
people – your power enables you to suspend that history.
My third and most important reason for rejecting you, this
panel of judges, is that you are not independent. This case is
tainted by a serious conflict of interest and violates several
of my fundamental rights: the right to equality before law,
Art 7 of the UDHR; the right to a fair trial, and the
principle of presuming innocence until proven guilty, Art’s 10
and 11 respectively of the same declaration; and Art’s 9 and
14 of the ICCPR, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention
and the right to a fair trial. The court has complained of my
disdainful attitude towards UNMIK and the courts. But
actually, it is the “justice” officials in this case who have
shown contempt toward me by violating my fundamental rights.
Each of you has sworn your oaths as international judges
before the SRSG, who is also listed as an offended part in
this case. The SRSG is the one who appointed you, as he
appoints all international judges in Kosova. This case is thus
tainted by a severe bias and conflict of interest, as UNMIK is
represented as an offended, prosecuting and judging part. The
judicial system in Kosova is part of UNMIK’s First Pillar and
thus intertwined with the executive. There is no separation of
powers, one of the basic democratic principles. As pointed out
by the IHF and Human Rights Watch, Kosova’s judiciary is not
sufficiently independent, accountable or transparent. None of
you judges (nor the Prosecutors) are accountable to people of
Kosova. All of you are immune from the laws you apply to me.
There is no independent accountability mechanism overseeing
your actions. Such an arbitrary power cannot be legitimate.
The very focus of my work is to object to UNMIK and the SRSG
as the highest expression of an anti-democratic order. I see
it as my responsibility to challenge the imposed UNMIK system,
to show dissent, to non-violently oppose and confront its
repressive organs and non-representative authorities. This
makes it impossible for me to get a fair trial within this
system.
Since the February 10 demonstration, numerous local and
international authority representatives have made defamatory
public remarks about me and VETeVENDOSJE! and portrayed our
actions as damaging the process for status of Kosova. Already
the first Unity Team declaration after February 10 said “the
violent protests enticed by Albin Kurti and Levizja
VETeVENDOSJE! where two persons lost their lives (...) create
special tensions against stability and general interests of
Kosova.” The head of the British office in Prishtina David
Blunt stated to the media that the Contact Group was concerned
that the VETeVENDOSJE! protest had endangered the personal
security of police and the Assembly building, while Naim
Maloku from the Assembly Committee for Security lied on TV and
said that the demonstrators had used Molotov cocktails. As
late as in August KPS spokesperson Veton Elshani stated that I
had “led a violent protest” and implied that I was responsible
for the two deaths. What these officials actually mean is that
my non-violent democratic opposition is damaging them, the
authorities issuing these statements. During this period of
status negotiations, to which I strongly oppose, it is in the
interest of the authorities, including UNMIK to silence my
voice and isolate me from people who potentially could join me
in opposing them. As the German Institute for European
Politics has pointed out, UNMIK has created a “culture of
systematic repression” of criticism in order to portray Kosovo
as a success story.
You, the judges and prosecution are part of UNMIK. You have
not only accepted the false allegations made in the press, you
have even incorporated them into your own approach to this
case. For example, on May 7 the prosecution explicitly used my
political engagement to argue for continued detention. During
five months in prison the prosecutor interrogated me only once
(on 1 March) for half an hour, which shows that isolation has
been a greater priority than investigation. The Dean report on
the February 10th event, determining the police reaction as
disproportionate, avoidable and unnecessary, i.e. illegal, has
not been considered in my case. Despite the Dean report’s
conclusions about the uncontrolled police reaction and police
violence, it is me, and not the police who are accused of
creating general danger and calling for violence. All this
illuminates the judiciary’s bias and lack of independence.
The lack of independence on the part of the judges and
prosecutors is also evident in this case’s portrayal of
VETeVENDOSJE!. Systematically and from the start VETeVENDOSJE!
has been presented as criminal, vandalistic and dangerous,
aiming for nothing but destruction and instability. This
misrepresentation is intended to criminalise me and
marginalise the movement by portraying it as extreme. In
reality, VETeVENDOSJE! is a non-violent, voluntary political
movement. No one is paid or forced to be in VETeVENDOSJE!. Our
main concrete goal is to arrange a referendum for the people
of Kosova, making Kosova’s status the people’s decision, and
not a decision of unaccountable bureaucrats. Our focus is to
problematise the political system by opposing the neo-colonial
UNMIK administration and not other ethnicities. Especially
during this politically sensitive time we believe people’s
social and political dissatisfaction must be democratically
directed towards the regime and not other ethnic groups.
The aim of our protest on February 10 was to show political
dissatisfaction with the status negotiations with Serbia and
its result, the Ahtisaari package, which we believe will bring
Kosovo nothing but renewed conflicts and large-scale crimes.
Until February 10 no one has ever been injured in VETeVENDOSJE!
demonstrations, and that day it was the police who caused
general danger, damage, injuries and deaths, not us. The
participants in our actions have always respected the
principles of our movement, including calls for nonviolent
conduct. These principles are included in the prosecutor’s
case material.
Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of movement
are accorded to us by the UDHR, Art 20 and the ICCPR, Art 21.
Suppressing these rights, as well as the other universal
standards I have evoked here, for the sake of political
interest or political convenience is unacceptable. In the
demonstration on February 10 these rights were denied us
collectively. In this case, universal human rights have been
denied to me individually.
I do not accept you, the judges in this panel. I do not accept
the prosecution or the lawyer appointed to me. I do not accept
this court. You are not impartial, nor independent. By
accepting this case you are complicit in the discriminatory
process against me, violating my fundamental rights and
freedoms. I call for this case to be dismissed.
Prishtine, 19 September 2007
Albin Kurti
Levizja VETEVENDOSJE |
