I usually let sleeping dogs lie on certain issues. But I feel I had to comment on the following statement published in Newsletter 70 of the Vetevendosje website (www.vetevendosje.org). It reads:
The prosecution will present the witnesses against Albin. They are all police officers. Albin has not called any witnesses for his defense because, to do so, he must request permission by the court.
Vetevendosje’s statement about Albin not calling any witnesses is true. But the implication is completely wrong.
First, the normal order of a trial is that the prosecution goes first with its case because it has the burden of proof. Only after does the defense call his witnesses, if he so chooses.
The fact is this: Albin has not called any witnesses because the prosecution is not done with the case!!! I’m sure he’ll have his opportunity to do so.
Vetevendosje also says:
Some of these policemen were questioned without the presence of the defense, but their submissions were signed by the court appointed defense council.
To begin, there is no requirement that the defendant or defense council be present at every questioning period. It is only if the prosecution plans on using the statements against the defendant, does either the defendant or the defense council have to be present.
Also, Vetevendosje’s statement suggests that Kurti’s court appointed defense council was not present at certain times when the police were being questioned during the investigation, but instead signed it later, thus allowing those statements to be admitted into evidence. This is completely false. Speak with those who know Mr. Hasolli, Kurti’s former defense council. It flies right in the face of what Vetvendosje is saying.
I’m not sure why Vetevendosje misreports on so many issues surrounding Kurti. When they do that, it really undermines many of the good things they are trying to accomplish.