Troubled Start to Kosovo Albanian Trial

Wednesday, 9 November, 2005

The link has been copied

Michael Farquhar

The trial of the first Kosovar Albanians to appear before the Hague tribunal has got off to a difficult start. Their first month in court has been dogged by a series of problems ranging from strong negative reactions in Kosovo and witness intimidation, to translation problems and objections to the way the defendants are transported to and from court.

While the individual issues raised are not all new, observers say it is uncommon for so many difficulties to arise in one trial, and at such an early stage.

Tribunal officials are keen to play down the situation. "All trials are unique, and set up their own set of challenges and set of circumstances that need to be addressed," spokesman Jim Landale told IWPR. "And in that sense, this is no different."

Fatmir Limaj, Isak Musliu and Haradin Bala, who all deny charges that they were involved in torturing and murdering Serbs and suspected Albanian collaborators in and around a prison camp in central Kosovo in 1998, faced prosecutors for the first time on November 15.

The start of the trial received wide coverage in the Kosovo press, with reactions in some newspapers mirroring the negative attitudes that have typified the Belgrade media’s view of The Hague in the past.

While prosecutor Andrew Cayley was careful to underline in his opening statement that he was mounting a case against individuals, not against a national or political group, some editors appeared unconvinced.

The next day's copy of the daily Epoka e Re ran the front page headline "Anti-Albanian Trial", while Zeri quoted senior Kosovar politician Ramadan Avdiu as saying that in an effort to maintain balance by prosecuting different nationalities, the tribunal had become "an instrument of politics instead of justice".

The Kosovo government echoed the sentiment in a statement that claimed the prosecution's presentation of the case was "based not on facts or arguments, but on political statements which aim to equalise the war for liberation with the genocidal and occupying army of the Serbian state in Kosovo".

Ten thousand people took to the streets of Prishtina towards the end of November in protest against the proceedings.

Given this context, it is unsurprising that the issue of witness intimidation has come to the fore.

Even before the trial began, prosecutors issued a separate indictment against Beqe Beqaj, a Kosovar Albanian apparently related to Isak Musliu, for attempting to interfere with witnesses in the case. Beqaj had apparently claimed he was in contact with Limaj and Musliu while they were in detention in The Hague, and that he was acting on their behalf to persuade prosecution witnesses to withdraw their testimony.

The trial chamber in charge of the case has ruled that 12 witnesses will be allowed to testify under protective measures. The prosecution said some of them had been threatened in connection with the case, and one had faced assassination attempts.

The tribunal has also taken the unusual step of distributing an advisory notice to journalists, reminding them of their obligation to respect the privacy of protected witnesses and the possibility of a 100,000 euro fine and seven year jail sentence should they fail to do so.

In a further complication, defence lawyers for the three accused have said they face a potentially "serious and ongoing difficulty" in finding Albanian-language interpreters to enable them to communicate with their clients.

Speaking at a conference before the start of the trial on November 29, Gregor Guy-Smith, who represents Bala, said the problem stems simply from a scarcity of qualified candidates. He said he had been informed that the tribunal itself faces the same difficulty.

He said defence lawyers had found that the limited resources at their disposal exacerbated the problem – each team is allotted 1,000 euro a month to pay for interpreters so that lawyers can communicate with their clients. Guy-Smith said he had conducted interviews in London and Kosovo in an effort to find good interpreters, but had been faced with the fact that the cost of bringing candidates to live in The Hague for the sole purpose of working as an interpreter for the defence is "prohibitive".

As a result of the lack of available interpreters, defence lawyer Michael Topolski said he was unable to talk to his client Musliu in the detention unit for an entire week in the run-up to the start of proceedings. And Guy-Smith said he had been forced to cancel two visits for the same reason.

Defence lawyers have also objected to the fact that the three defendants had for months been forced to wear blindfolds while being transported between the United Nations detention centre and the tribunal courtrooms.

The issue came to a head three days into the trial when a session had to be cancelled, reportedly because the defendants refused to go to court under such conditions.

The tribunal had apparently already been involved in a series of exchanges on the matter with the Netherlands justice ministry, which is responsible for detainee transfers. The measure was lifted the next day.

The use of blindfolds is sanctioned under Dutch law, and a set of "Instructions for the Transportation of Prisoners" obtained by IWPR from the ministry of justice says that decisions regarding use of the measure should be based on an individual detainee's "risk profile".

It is hard to ascertain how widely the measure is used when other tribunal defendants are being moved around, since the court's spokespeople do not discuss security issues as a matter of policy.

Michael Farquhar is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.