{"id":881,"date":"2012-05-24T13:24:23","date_gmt":"2012-05-24T13:24:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/?p=881"},"modified":"2012-05-24T13:24:23","modified_gmt":"2012-05-24T13:24:23","slug":"drejtesia-e-vonuar-eshte-drejtesi-e-mohuar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/?p=881","title":{"rendered":"DREJTESIA E VONUAR ESHTE DREJTESI E MOHUAR"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>RAMUSH HARADINAJ: DREJTESIA E VONUAR ESHTE DREJTESI E MOHUAR <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Shkruar nga Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Pas lengimit ne burg prej mese dy vitesh pa e ditur gjat\u00ebsin\u00eb dhe rezultatin e gjykimit t\u00eb tij, Ramush Haradinaj do te lirohet se shpejti perkohesisht nga burgu i Tribunalit Nderkombetar per Krime Lufte ne ish-Jugosllavi. Dhoma e Apelit e mori kete vendim pasi prokuroria i dha fund rastit te saj ne gjykimin e e pjesshem te Haradinajt dhe dy te akuzuarve te tjere, Lahi Brahimaj dhe Idriz Balaj, dhe pasi Dhoma mbajti nje degjim te statusit me 2 Maj. Ne kete degjim per statusin, gjykatesit gjithashtu vendosen te degjonin argumentet permbyllese nga Mbrojtja me 25 e 26 qershor, para se cilese Haradinaj do te kthehet prape ne gjykate.<\/p>\n

Ramush Haradinaj, ish-kryeministri i Kosov\u00ebs dhe komandant i respektuar i Ushtris\u00eb \u00c7lirimtare t\u00eb Kosov\u00ebs, u lirua nga t\u00eb gjithat akuzat p\u00ebr krime lufte para Tribunalit Nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar p\u00ebr Krime Lufte p\u00ebr ish-Jugosllavine n\u00eb Hag\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2008. N\u00eb nj\u00eb kthes\u00eb t\u00eb papar\u00eb, Haradinaj u arrestua p\u00ebrs\u00ebri n\u00eb korrik t\u00eb 2010-s\u00eb, pasi Gjykata e Apelit e bindi Tribunalin se nj\u00eb gjykim i pjessh\u00ebm ishte i duhur \u2013 kinse Prokuroria nuk kishte koh\u00eb t\u00eb mjaftueshme t\u00eb bindte dy d\u00ebshmitar\u00eb vendimtar\u00eb q\u00eb t\u00eb d\u00ebshmojn\u00eb. Kjo e b\u00ebri Haradinajn t\u00eb akuzuarin a par\u00eb ndaj t\u00eb cilit u rr\u00ebzua vendimi p\u00ebr lirimin nga t\u00eb gjitha akuzat qysh kur Tribunali u themelua n\u00eb 1993.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb dhjetor t\u00eb vitit 2010, Haradinajt iu mohua lirimi i p\u00ebrkohsh\u00ebm nga gjykat\u00ebsit a Apelit t\u00eb Tribunalit q\u00eb te ishte me gruan e tij, Anita Mu\u00e7aj, kur ajo lindi djalin e tyre t\u00eb tret\u00eb n\u00eb Janar t\u00eb vitit 2011. (\u00c7uditsh\u00ebm, Gjykat\u00ebsi kryesor Patrick Robinson, i cili pjes\u00ebrisht nuk ishte pajtuar me regjykimin, argumentoi se Haradinaj mund t\u00eb shfryt\u00ebzonte lirimin e tij p\u00ebr ti k\u00ebrc\u00ebnuar d\u00ebshmitar\u00ebt.) Gjykimi i pjes\u00ebrish\u00ebm i Haradinajt filloi me 18 gusht, 2011. Gjykimi u nd\u00ebrpre pak pasi filloi dhe vazhdoi me 13 shkurt, 2012 \u2013 vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr tu ndaluar s\u00ebrish kur nj\u00ebri prej d\u00ebshmitar\u00ebve kryesor\u00eb t\u00eb Prokuroris\u00eb, nj\u00eb d\u00ebshmitar i mbrojtur, nuk u paraqit n\u00eb gjykat\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Edhe pse vendimi per ti liruar me kusht perkohesisht Haradinajn eshte per tu pershendetur, megjithate une besoj se \u00ebsht\u00eb koha q\u00eb ta vizitojm\u00eb rastin e Haradinajt para Tribunalit \u2013 t\u00eb pyesim pse rasti u rihap, dhe pse ka nj\u00eb zgjatje t\u00eb paarsyeshme t\u00eb zhvillimit t\u00eb gjykimit. Kjo e fundit \u00ebsht\u00eb shkelje e Konvent\u00ebs Evropiane mbi t\u00eb Drejtat e Njeriut t\u00eb k\u00ebrkesave p\u00ebr shqyrtimin a rasteve gjat\u00eb nj\u00eb kohe t\u00eb arsyeshme. P\u00ebr ti shqyrtuar k\u00ebto \u00e7\u00ebshtje, \u00ebsht\u00eb e nevojshme q\u00eb ti shikojm\u00eb historin\u00eb e k\u00ebtij rasti.<\/p>\n

Historia e gjykimit kunder Haradinajt<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Pas vetem 100 ditesh ne zyre si kryeminister i Kosoves, Haradinaj dha doreheqje nga ky post ne 2005, iu dorezua Tribunalit Nderkombetar per Krime Lufte ne ish-Jugosllavi, shpenzoi dy vite ne qendren e paraburgimit ne Hage, dhe nje vit tjeter ne arrest shtepiak ne Prishtine para se Tribunali ta lironte me 3 prill 2008 nga te gjitha akuzat per involvim ne sjellje te paligjshme perderisa ai ishte komandant ne Ushtrine Clirimtare te Kosoves.<\/p>\n

Dhoma e Gjykates vendosi se nuk kishte prova te mjaftueshme per existencen e nje \u201cnderrmarrje kriminale te perbashket,\u201d dhe shfajesoi Haradinajn, Lahi Brahimaj, dhe Idriz Balaj, nga cdo pergjegjesi kriminale nga nje organizim I tille. Brahimaj u gjet if fajshem per akuzen e torures dhe u denua me gjashte vjet burg.<\/p>\n

Sapo u kthye Haradinaj ne Kosove ne 2008, Prokuroria apeloi vendimin duke insistuar se ai ishte liruar per shkak se \u201ckeqmenaxhimi\u201d i Tribunalit e kishte ndaluar Prokurorine nga marrja e provave nga dy deshmitare kryesore \u2013 deshmitare qe deklaruan se ishin kercenuar dhe kishin frike te deshmonin. Gjykata e Apelit u pergjegj duke i mbajtur 31 akuzat e lirimit. Mirepo, ne mbeshtetje te apelit te Prokurorise, urdheroi rigjykim te 6 akuzave per vrasje, trajtim mizor, dhe torture ne nje qender te supozuar paraburgimi te UCK-se ne Jablanice ne pranvere dhe vere te 1998. Gjithashtu Gjykata e Apelit u pajtua qe gjykatesit nuk i kishin dhene Prokurorise kohe te mjaftueshme qe te siguronte deshmine e Shefqet Kabashit dhe deshmitarit te mbrojtur i njohur si \u201cDeshmitari X.\u201d Dhoma e Apelit e beri kete edhe pse Haradinaj ishte liruar nga te gjitha akuzat ne gjykimin e tij te mehershem e edhe pse nuk kishte kurrefare prove se ai kishte nderhyre te ndonje deshmitare. Dy vite me vone, Haradinaj nuk kishte zgjidhje tjeter pose te kthehej te qendra e paraburgimit te Tribunalit.<\/p>\n

Per mendimin tim, gjykimi i vazhdueshem i Ramush Haradinajt pasi gjykimi i tij i mehershem ne Hage konkludoi se nuk kishte prova qe e lidhnin ate me ndonje krim apo viktime, eshte problematik nga nje perspektive legale dhe morale. Se pari, nuk kishte arsye se pse ai te mbahej ne paraburgim kur ai ka nje histori te pegjigjjes ndaj kerkesave te Tribunalit dhe nuk ka rrezik qe ai te arratiset. Se dyti, problemet legale dhe strukturale ne kete rast jane dokumentuar mire nga experti i se drejtes nderkombetare Roland Gjoni ne artikullin e tij: \u201cTribunali: favorizimi i prokurise ndaj drejtesise?\u201d (Open Democracy, 9 gusht, 2011). Gjoni spjegon se gjykimi i pjesshem i Haradinajt ishte ikje jo vetem prej \u201cparimeve themelore te se drejtes nderkombetare,\u201d por edhe ne kundershtim me vendimet e mehershme te bera nga gjykata ne rastet Dusko Taci (1993) dhe Naser Oric (2009). (Ne te dyra rastet, Tribunalit ndaloi rigjykimin e nje te akuzuari qe eshte shpallur i pafajshem.) Gjoni konkludoi se rrezimi i vendimit per lirimin nga akuzat ne rastin e Haradinajt eshte baraz me \u201cgjykim te dyfishte\u201d \u2013 nje sinjal se \u201cTribunali mund te jete duke i lakuar parimet themelore ligjore ne favor te prokurorise.\u201d<\/p>\n

Presidenti Robinson beri nje veshtrim te ngjashem ne mospajtimin e tij te pjesshem ne vendimin e Dhomes se Apelit per ta rigjykuar Haradinajn (Maj 31, 2011, fq.16-17, paragrafi 3): \u201c Ne pajtim me parimin e non bis in idem<\/em>, nje person qe eshte gjykuar nga gjykata nuk duhet te vendoset ne rrezik te konsiderimi si i fajshem per nje akuze per te cilen eshte liruar, apo te trajtohet si i fajshem ne ndonje forme.\u201d Per me teper, \u201cdoktrina e res judicata<\/em> kerkon qe \u00e7eshtjet per te cilat edhe dhene gjykimi duhet te pranohen si te verteta\u2026 dhe nuk munt te rigjykohen nga te njejtat pale ne nje gjykim te mevonshem.\u201d<\/p>\n

Robinsoni konkludoi se Dhoma e Apelit dhunoi rregullen e saj te veten se \u201cnuk do te rrezonte lehte vendimet bazuar ne diskrecionin e Dhomes se Gjykimit.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dhoma e Apelit Gaboi kur thirri nje rigjykim te pjesshem.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Gjykatesit e Apelit vendosen qe rigjykimi i pjesshem ishte i nevojshem pasi qe Prokuroria i bindi ata se Shefket Kabashi dhe \u201cDeshmitari X\u201d ishin kercenuar gjate gjykimit fillestar \u2013 deshmitare qe e kishin kundershtuar UCK-ne gjate luftes. Mirepo atehere Dhoma shkoi nje hap me tej ne favor te Prokurorise kur u pajtua te lejonte deshmitare te ri<\/em> \u2013 jo vetem te dy deshmitaret nga gjykimi i pare \u2013 qe te deshmojne dhe gjithashtu pere te lejuar akuzat qe te qendrojne ne gjykim qe nuk kishin kurrfare lidhje me gjashte akuzat. Ne qofte se per asnje arsye tjeter pervec kesaj, racionalja per rigjykimin e Haradinajt meriton shqyrtim me te detajuar. Si\u00e7 ka argumentuar Roland Gjoni, Tribunali nuk duhej t\u2019ia jipte Prokurorise \u201cnje mundesi te pafund per te permiresuar nje rast te dobet dhe per ta rigjykuar nje person qe tashme eshte liruar nga te gjitha akuzat.\u201d Duke bere nje gje te tille, kjo \u201cka vendosur nje hije te madhe permbi aftesisee e tribunalit per dhene drejtesi.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ne fillim te rigjykimit te pjesshem ne gusht te 2011, Prokurori Paul Rogers deklaroi se UCK-ja ishte \u201cforce legjitime\u201d kur luftoi per pavaresine e Kosoves nga Serbia ne 1998 dhe 1999, por se kishte perdorur \u201cmjete ilegale\u201d kunder kundershtareve serb, rome, dhe shqiptar.\u201d Per ta mbeshtetur kete deklarate, ai solli Shefqet Kabashin, qe dyshohet te kete qene roje burgu ne kampin e Jablanices. Mirepo, ne nje goditje per Prokurorine, Kabashi, deshmia e te cilit duhej te ishte ne qender te gjykimi, refuzoi vazhdimisht te deshmonte, sikurse kishte bere ne dy raste gjate gjykimit te pare. Kabashi gjithashtu kontradiktoi deklaraten e tij te mehershme ndaj investiguesve te Tribunalit. Ai mohoi se ka existuar kampi i Jablanice: \u201cNuk ka pasur burg ne Jablanice,\u201d tha ai. \u201cUne mund te betohem per kete.\u201d Kabashi u deklarua i fajshem per kundershtim te gjykates dhe u denua ne 16 shtator 2011 me dy muaj burg.<\/p>\n

Sic kishte argumentuar mbrojtja ne \u201cPermbledhjen e Para-Gjykimit ne Emer te Ramush Haradinajt\u201d (paragrafi 27) ne korrik 2011, Prokuroria nuk mund te thoshte se Jablanica ishte baze e UCK-se, sepse ishte pushtuar te pakten tri here nga forcat serbe gjate periudhes operative te padise. Edhe pse kishte konflikt te armatosur mes serbeve dhe shqiptareve gjate periudhes ne lidhje me gjashte aktakuzat, \u201cNuk kishte ndonje hakmarrje te orkestruar nga UCK-ja kunder popullates civile serbe apo kunder civileve te ndonje grupi tjeter etnik.\u201d Per me teper, as Dhomat e Gjykates te Tribunalit e as Prokuroria nuk kishin sugjeruar se ndonje fushate e tille egzistonte ne ndonjeren prej rasteve te merparshme ne lidhje me Kosoven ne cilen komandantet serbe ishin gjykuar (paragrafet 29 dhe 30).<\/p>\n

Mbrojtja me tej tha ne permbledhjen e saj para gjykimit se nuk kishte prova te besueshme se Haradinaj kishte marr pjese ne keqtrajtim apo se dinte per nje gje te tille (paragrafi 41), dhe se UCK-ja ne rajonin e Dukagjinit ishte \u201corganizate e re dhe e papervoje\u201d qe punonte per te organizuar mbrojtje si pergjigje ndaj sulmeve serbe (paragrafi 43). Prandaj, nuk kishte prova te nje \u201cnderrmarrje te perbashket kriminale,\u201d dhe ata thane se kishin shume dyshim se ndonje evidence e re do te shfaqej ne rigjykim qe do te jepte baza adekuate te mjaftueshme per rrezimin e vendimit ne gjykimin e pare.<\/p>\n

Ne nderkohe, akuzat se Sheqet Kabashi dhe deshmitari i mbrojtur ishin kercenuar nuk u konfirmuan kurre. Sic i tha avokati kryesues i Haradinajt, Ben Emmerson, Rachel Irwin te Raportimi i Institutit per Lufte dhe Paqe me 19 gusht, 2011, \u201cPervec disa thashethemeve, nuk ka sugjerime se z. Haradinaj kishte qene ndonjehere pergjegjes per kercenimin e deshmitareve, ne menyre direkte ose joindirekte.\u201d Emmersoni shtoi se ne rastin e Deshmitari X, nese ai vendos te deshmoje ne rigjykimin e pjesshem, ai \u201cdo te ekspozohet si genjeshtar dhe nje qe ka genjyer nen betim.\u201d Por ne nje goditje tjeter ndaj rastit te Prokurorise kunder Haradinajt, deshmitari X, deshmia e te cilit duhej te ishte arsyetimi per rigjykimin e pjesshem, nuk u paraqit ne gjykate ne shkurt 2012. Kjo rezultoi ne ndaljen e gjykimin deri nje njoftim tjeter nga gjykata.<\/p>\n

Nuk eshte e cuditshme qe rigjykimi i Ramush Haradinajt ka bere qe shume shqiptare, te mos permendim disa edhe disa eksperte ligjore dhe te drejtave te njeriut ne gjithe boten, qe te humbin besim ne Tribunalin. Besohet gjeresisht ne Kosove se rigjykimi perben pozicionim politik te perendimit ndaj Serbise. Ky eshte nje problem qe duhet te shqyrtohet, mirepo jo vecmas nga pranimi se Ramush Haradinaj kurre nuk do te arrestohej serish, te burgosej serish, pa lejen e heshtur te te gjithe aktereve te Kosoves se pasluftes, duke perfshire ketu edhe qeverine e Kosoves nen Hashim Thacin.<\/p>\n

Beogradi ka qene i suksesshem ne largimin e Tribunalit nga misioni i saj fillestar<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Robert Churcher, specialist i pasluftes qe deshmoi ne gjykimin e komandantit te UCK-se ne Hage, kembenguli qe \u201czyrtaret serbe kane qene duke i dhene Prokurorise prova te rrejshme qysh ne fillim,\u201d dhe se ai e nen\u00e7mon faktin se gjykata ka qene e gatshme ta pranonte ate. \u201cSi nje gjest pacifues ndaj Beogradit,\u201d tha ai, \u201cProkuroria po perpiqet qe ta rigjykoje rastin Haradinaj prej fillimit.\u201d Deri ne nje mase, Tribunali ka qene bashkefajtor per shkak te fushates se suksesshme te Serbise kunder UCK-se qe nga perfundimi i luftes se Kosoves ne qershor 1999.<\/p>\n

Perderisa themelimi i Tribunalit Nderkombetar per Krime Lufte ne ish-Jugosllavi ishte nje hap i rendesishem ne verjen para drejtesise te atyre qe jane te pergjegjshem per krime kunder njerezimit dhe gjenocid ne Ballkan, fatkeqesisht ne bashkepunim me elemente pro serbe ne Bashkimin Evropian, Beogradi ka qene i suksesshem ne largimin e Tribunalit nga misioni i saj fillestar i adresimit te krimeve te bera ne ish-Jugosllavi.<\/p>\n

Ne kete proces, ka kontribuar ne krijimin e nje barazimi falls mes beresve te krimeve dhe viktimave ne lufterat e Ballkanit ne vite e 1990-ta.<\/p>\n

Per te permbushur nevojen per tu pare si etnikisht i balancuar, Tribunali i ka hedhur te gjitha palet ne lufterat e Ballkanit si te pergjegjshem te barabarte, edhe pse Serbia i filloi te gjitha lufterat dhe forcat ushtarake dhe para-ushtarake te Miloshevi\u00e7it ishin pergjegjese per 90 perqind te krimeve te bera. Qe te jemi te sigurte, incidence sporadike te tmerrshme ndodhen edhe ne anen kosovare, por asgje qe e ben moralisht te barabarte UCK-ne me Serbine.<\/p>\n

Sic ka thene nepunesi i mehershem ligjor i Tribunalit dhe drejtori i projekteve te organizates jofitimprurese \u201cJo paqe pa drejtesi\u201d Niccolo Figa-Talmanca para hapjes se gjykimit te pare te Haradinajt, \u201cNe jemi duke e para perpjekjen e kequdhehequr te Tribunalit qe te ndjek penalisht te gjitha grupet \u2013 serbet, kroatet, boshnjaket, dhe kosovaret \u2013 ne menyre te barabarte, pa marre parasysh shkallen e krimeve te bera,\u201d dhe rezultati eshte \u201cnje perpjekje per te rishkruar historine dhe per te mohuar masen e vertete te pergjegjesise per tmerret te lufterave te Ballkanit.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nese qellimi eshte te arrihet paqe te qendrueshme ne Evropen Juglindore atehere komuniteti nderkombetar nuk duhet te jete pjese e krijimit te nje versioni revizionist ku viktimat e terrorit te Milloshevi\u00e7it rivendosen si beres te krimeve. Nuk ka kurrefare dyshimi se ata qe kane bere krime duhet te mbahen pergjegjes. Mirepo duke i sjellur te akuzuare te UCK-se si Ramush Haradinaj ne Tribunal, komunitetit nderkombetar ka ndihmuar ne krijimin e nje versioni revizionist te historise, kur viktimat e fushates se Milloshevi\u00e7it kunder shqiptareve rivendosen si beres te krimeve. Rigjykimi i Haradinajt pasi ai u lirua nga te gjitha akuzat e ve barren per prova ne anen e gjykates per ta mohuar kete.<\/p>\n

Me Kosoven qe ska ende sovranitet si shtet, besoj se Tribunali i Hages, nen presion per tu dukur si politikisht i balancuar, dhe ne nje perpjekje per ta bindur Serbine qe te dorezoje komandatet serbe te Bosnjes Ratko Mladic dhe Radovan Karadzic, gje qe e ka bere, besonte se duhej ta burgoste serish Ramush Haradinajn. Mirepo duke e bere nje gje te tille, e ka braktisur misionin historike te saj per ti sjellur drejtesi viktimave te lufterave ballkanike. Qeveria e ShBA-ve, tani ne nje fushate te fundit per te zgjidhur konfliktin mes Beogradit dhe Prishtines, dhe per ta lene Ballkanin ne duart e BE-se, e ka mbeshtetur de facto kete pozicion. Mirepo, konflikti shqiptaro-serb nuk mund te zgjidhet ne kete menyre.<\/p>\n

Si\u00e7 shkroi Ramush Haradinaj me 1 dhjetor, 2001, ne artikull ne The Wall Street Journal Europe<\/em>, pak para se te zgjidhej kryeminister nga Parlamenti i Kosoves:<\/p>\n

[\u2026] jam i lumtur per pjesen qe kam luajtur ne mbrojtjen e popullit tim nga Slobodan Milloshevici dhe kriminelet e tij, dhe jam i gatshem qe te mbroje veprat e mija kunder kritikave dhe shpifjeve.<\/p>\n

\u201cPrandaj une e mirepres shqyrtimin e veprave te mija gjate luftes nga Tribunali Nderkombetare per Krime Lufte ne ish-Jugosllavi\u2026dhe besoj se e verteta dhe drejtesia do te fitojne. Megjithate, \u00e7do perpjekje \u2013 nga Tribunali me motivet me te mira, apo nga te tjeret me me te keqijat \u2013 qe moralisht ta barazojne terrorin e sponsorizuar nga shteti i Miloshevi\u00e7it me veprat e Ushtrise Clirimtare te Kosoves ne mbrojtje te shqiptareve te Kosoves vetem se do ta beje detyrat qe jane para Kosoves dhe me te veshtira.<\/p>\n

\u201cSe tani nevoja eshte qe shikojme para e jo prapa, qe te krijojme nje shtet gjitheperfshires, demokratik, e te pavarur, nje shtet qe respekton te gjithe te drejtat e qytetareve dhe qe eshte i drejte dhe tolerant.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi eshte Keshilltare per Ceshtje te Ballkanit prane Liges Qytetare Shqiptaro-Amerikane.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

New York, 10 Mai 2012<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

RAMUSH HARADINAJ: JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

By Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

After languishing in prison for almost two years with the duration and outcome of his partial retrial unknown, Ramush Haradinaj is about to be released from prison temporarily by the The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The Appeals Chamber made this decision after the Prosecution rested its case last month in the partial retrial of Haradinaj and his co-defendants, Lahi Brahimaj and Idriz Balaj, and after the Chamber held a status hearing on May 2. At the status hearing, the judges also decided to hear closing arguments from the Defense on June 25 and 26, in advance of which Haradinaj will be returned toThe Hague.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ramush Haradinaj, the former Prime Minister of Kosovo and a well-respected Kosova Liberation Army commander, was acquitted of all war crimes charges before the ICTY in 2008.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In an unprecedented turnaround, Haradinaj was rearrested in July 2010, after the Appeals Chamber convinced the Tribunal that a partial retrial was in order\u2014purportedly because the Prosecution did not have enough time to persuade two crucial witnesses to testify. This made Haradinaj the first defendant since the ICTY was established in 1993 to have his acquittal on all charges overturned.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In December 2010, Haradinaj was denied provisional release by the Appeals judges at the ICTY to be with his wife, Anita Mucaj, when she gave birth to their third child in January 2011. (Surprisingly, presiding Judge Patrick Robinson, who had partially dissented against the retrial, argued that Haradinaj might take advantage of his release to intimidate witnesses.) Haradinaj\u2019s partial retrial began on August 18, 2011. It was halted shortly thereafter and resumed on February 13, 2012\u2014only to be abruptly halted once again when one of the Prosecution\u2019s key witnesses, a protected witness, failed to appear in court.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Although the decision to grant Haradinaj provisional release is a salutary one, I nevertheless believe that it is time to revisit Haradinaj\u2019s case before the Tribunal\u2014to ask why it was reopened, and why there has been an unreasonable duration of judicial proceedings. The latter is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights\u2019 requirement for the examination of a case in a reasonable period of time. To explore these questions, it is necessary to review the history of the case.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

History of the Case against Haradinaj<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

After only 100 days in office as Prime Minister of Kosova, Haradinaj resigned his position in 2005, surrendered to The International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, spent two years in detention in The Hague, and another year under house arrest in Prishtina before the Tribunal acquitted him on April 3, 2008, on all counts of being involved in any unlawful conduct while he was a commander in the Kosova Liberation Army. The Trial Chamber found that there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of a \u201cjoint criminal enterprise,\u201d and acquitted Haradinaj, Lahi Brahimaj, and Idriz Balaj of any criminal liability through such an enterprise. Brahimaj was found guilty of torture and sentenced to six years in prison.<\/p>\n

\n

As soon as Haradinaj returned to Kosova in 2008, the Prosecution appealed the acquittal, insisting that he had been freed because the Tribunal\u2019s \u201cmismanagement\u201d had prevented the Prosecution from obtaining evidence from two key witnesses\u2014witnesses that they claimed had been threatened and were afraid to testify. The Appeals Chamber responded by upholding 31 counts of the acquittal. But, in support of the Prosecution\u2019s appeal, it ordered a retrial on 6 counts of murder, cruel treatment, and torture at a purportedly KLA-run detention facility in Jablanica in the spring and summer of 1998. It also agreed that the trial judges had not given the Prosecution enough time to secure the testimony of Shefqet Kabashi and the protected witness known as \u201cWitness X.\u201d The Appeals Chamber did this even though Haradinaj had been acquitted of all counts at his original trial and even though there was no evidence whatsoever that he had interfered with any witness. Two years later, Haradinaj found that he had no choice but to return to the ICTY\u2019s detention center.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In my opinion, the ongoing prosecution of Ramush Haradinaj, after his original trial at the ICTY concluded that there was no evidence linking him to any crime or any victim, is problematic from both a legal and moral perspective. First, there was no reason to keep Haradinaj in pre-trial detention, when he had a proven record of responding to the ICTY and there is no risk of his absconding. Second, the structural, legal problems in this case have been well documented by international law expert Roland Gjoni in his \u201cICTY: Favoring Prosecution over Justice?\u201d (Open Democracy<\/em>, August 9, 2011). Gjoni explained that Haradinaj\u2019s partial retrial was a departure not only from \u201cfundamental principles of international law,\u201d but also a contravention of previous decisions made by the court in Dusko Tadic (1993) and Naser Ori\u0107 (2009). (In both cases, the ICTY barred the retrial of an acquitted defendant.) Gjoni concluded that the reversal of the acquittal in Haradinaj\u2019s case amounted to \u201cdouble jeopardy\u201d\u2014an indication that \u201cthe ICTY may be bending fundamental legal principles in favor of the prosecution.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

President Robinson made a similar observation in his partial dissent of the Appeals Chamber\u2019s decision to retry Haradinaj (May 31, 2011, pp. 16-17, para. 3): \u201cPursuant to the principle of non bis in idem<\/em>, a person who has been tried at the Tribunal must not be placed at the risk of being thought guilty of an offense of which he has been acquitted, or of being treated as guilty in any sense.\u201d Furthermore, \u201cthe doctrine of res judicata<\/em> entails that matters decided having passed judgment must be accepted as true\u2026and cannot be re-litigated by the same parties in a subsequent proceeding.\u201d Robinson concluded that the Appeals Chamber violated its own rule that it \u201cwould not lightly overturn decisions based on the Trial Chamber\u2019s discretion.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Appeals Chamber Erred when It Called for a Partial Retrial<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Appeals judges decided that the partial retrial was necessary after the Prosecution convinced them that Shefket Kabashi and \u201cWitness X\u201d had been intimidated during the<\/p>\n

original trial\u2014witnesses who had opposed the KLA during the war. But then the Chamber went a step further in favor of the Prosecution when it agreed to allow new<\/em> witnesses \u2014not just the two from the original trial\u2014to testify and also to permit allegations to remain in the indictment that had no bearing on the six counts. If for no other reason than this, the rationale for the retrial of Haradinaj merits closer scrutiny. As Roland Gjoni has argued, the ICTY should not have granted the Prosecution \u201can open-ended opportunity to improve a weak case and retry an acquitted defendant.\u201d In doing so, it has \u201ccast a long shadow over the Tribunal\u2019s ability to administer justice.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

At the opening of the partial retrial in August 2011, Prosecutor Paul Rogers stated that the KLA was a \u201clegitimate force\u201d when it fought for Kosova\u2019s independence from Serbia in 1998 and 1999, but that it had used \u201cillegal means\u201d against its Serbian, Roma, and Albanian opponents.\u201d To substantiate this claim, he brought to the stand Shefqet Kabashi, alleged to be a former prison guard in the Jablanica camp. But in a setback to the Prosecution, Kabashi, whose testimony was supposed to be central to its case, repeatedly refused to testify, just as he had done on two occasions during the original trial. Kabashi also contradicted his previous statements to ICTY investigators. He denied that the Jablanica camp even existed: \u201cThere was no prison in Jablanica,\u201d he said. \u201cI can swear about that.\u201d Kabashi pled guilty to contempt of court and was sentenced on September 16, 2011, to two months in jail.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As the Defence had argued in its July 2011 \u201cPre-Trial Brief on Behalf of Ramush Haradinaj\u201d (para. 27), the Prosecution could not claim that Jablanica was a KLA stronghold, because it was overrun by Serb forces at least three times during the operative period of the indictment. And even though there was an armed conflict between Serbs and Albanians during the period material to the six counts, \u201cThere was not any orchestrated retaliation by the KLA against either the Serb civilian population or against civilians from other ethnic groups.\u201d Moreover, neither the Trial Chambers at the ICTY nor the Prosecution had suggested that such a campaign existed in any of the previous cases related to Kosova in which Serb commanders had been tried (paras. 29 and 30).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Defence further stated in its pre-trial brief that there was no credible evidence of Haradinaj participating in or knowing about mistreatment (para. 41), and that the KLA in the Dukagjini region was a \u201crudimentary and fledgling organization\u201d working to organise defences in response to Serb attacks (para. 43). Therefore, there was no evidence of a \u201cjoint criminal enterprise,\u201d and they said that that it was very doubtful any new evidence would surface in the re-trial that would provide adequate grounds for overturning the decision at the original trial.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Meanwhile, allegations that Sheqet Kabashi and a protected witness had been intimidated were never confirmed. As Ben Emmerson, Haradinaj\u2019s lead attorney, told Rachel Irwin of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting<\/em> on August 19, 2011, \u201cDespite some rumors, there are no suggestions that Mr. Haradinaj was ever responsible for intimidating witnesses, directly or indirectly.\u201d Emmerson added that in the case of Witness X, if he decides to testify at the partial retrial, he \u201cwill be exposed as a liar and a perjurer.\u201d But in another blow to the Prosecution\u2019s case against Haradinaj, Witness X, whose testimony was also supposed to be the justification for the partial retrial, failed to show up in court in February 2012. This resulted in the termination of the trial until further notice.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is not surprising that the retrial of Ramush Haradinaj has caused many Albanians, not to mention some legal and human rights experts around the world, to lose faith in the ICTY. It is widely believed in Kosova that the re-trial amounts to political posturing on the part of the West towardsSerbia. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, but not apart from the recognition that Ramush Haradinaj would never have been rearrested, re-incarcerated, and retried without the tacit permission of all of the actors in post-war Kosova, including the Kosova government under Hashim Thaci.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Belgrade<\/em><\/strong> Has Been Successful in Steering the ICTY away from Its Original Mission<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Robert Churcher, a post-conflict specialist who testified at the ICTY trial for KLA Commander Fatmir Limaj, insists that \u201cSerbian officials have been spoon feeding the Prosecution with spurious evidence from the beginning,\u201d and he deplores the fact that the court has been willing to receive it. \u201cAs a sop toBelgrade,\u201d he said, \u201cthe Prosecution is attempting to retry the Haradinaj case from scratch.\u201d To some extent, the ICTY has been a willing accomplice because ofSerbia\u2019s successful propaganda campaign against the KLA since the end of the Kosova war in June 1999.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

While the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was an important step in bringing those responsible for crimes against humanity and genocide in the Balkans to justice, unfortunately in collusion with pro-Serb elements in the European Union, Belgrade has been successful in steering the ICTY away from its original mission of addressing the atrocities committed in the Former Yugoslavia. In the process, it has contributed to creating a false parity between the perpetrators and the victims of the Balkan wars of the 1990s.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To satisfy a need to be seen as ethnically balanced, the ICTY has ended up casting all parties in the Balkan wars as equally responsible, even thoughSerbiastarted all of the wars and Milosevic\u2019s military and paramilitary forces were responsible for 90 percent of the atrocities that were committed. To be sure, sporadic, terrible incidents occurred on the Kosovar side, but nothing amounting to moral equivalence between the KLA andSerbia.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As former ICTY law clerk and project director of the NGO No Peace without Justice Niccolo Figa-Talamanca said before the opening of the first trial of Haradinaj, \u201cWe are witnessing a misguided attempt by the ICTY to prosecute all groups\u2014Serbs, Croatians, Bosniaks, and Kosovars\u2014even-handedly, irrespective of the scale of the crimes<\/p>\n

committed,\u201d and the result is \u201can attempt to rewrite history and to negate the true measure of responsibility for the horrors of the Balkan wars.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If the goal is to achieve lasting piece inSoutheast Europethen the international community should not be party to creating a revisionist view of history in which the victims of Milosevic\u2019s reign of terror are repositioned as the perpetrators. There is no question that those who committed crimes should be held accountable. But by bringing KLA defendants like Ramush Haradinaj to the ICTY, the international community has unwittingly helped to create a revisionist view of history, in which the victims of Milosevic campaign against Albanians are repositioned as the perpetrators. Retrying<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Haradinaj after his acquittal on all charges puts the burden of proof on the court to deny this.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

With Kosova still lacking sovereignty as a state, I believe that The Hague Tribunal, under pressure to seem politically balanced, and in the effort to getSerbiato turn over Bosnian<\/p>\n

Serb commanders Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, which it has since done, felt that it had to re-incarcerate Ramush Haradinaj. But, in so doing, it has abdicated its historical mission to bring justice to the victims of the Balkan wars. TheUSgovernment, now in a final push to resolve the conflict betweenBelgradeand Prishtina, and to leave the Balkans in the hands of the European Union, has de facto supported this position. But the Serbian-Albanian conflict cannot be resolved in this way.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As Ramush Haradinaj wrote in his December 1, 2004, op-ed in The Wall Street Journal Europe<\/em>, just before he was chosen by Kosova\u2019s Assembly to become prime minister:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201c[…] I am proud of the part that I played in protecting my people from Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen, and I am ready to defend my actions against criticism and innuendo.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cI therefore welcome the scrutiny of my war record by the International Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia\u2026and am confident that truth and justice will prevail. However, any attempt\u2014be it by the ICTY with the best of motives, or others with the worst\u2014to morally equate Milosevic\u2019s state-sponsored terror with the actions of the Kosova Liberation Army in defense of Kosovar Albanians will only make the task [that lies ahead for Kosova] more difficult.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cFor the need now is to look forward rather than back, to create an inclusive, democratic independent state in Kosova that respects the rights of all of its citizens and is both just and tolerant.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi is Balkan Affairs Adviser to the Albanian American Civic League. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

New York, May 10, 2012<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RAMUSH HARADINAJ: DREJTESIA E VONUAR ESHTE DREJTESI E MOHUAR   Shkruar nga Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi   Pas lengimit ne burg prej mese dy vitesh pa e ditur gjat\u00ebsin\u00eb dhe rezultatin e gjykimit t\u00eb tij, Ramush Haradinaj do te lirohet se shpejti perkohesisht nga burgu i Tribunalit Nderkombetar per Krime Lufte ne ish-Jugosllavi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politike"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=881"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/881\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":883,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/881\/revisions\/883"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistakuvendi.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}