Instituti i Kosovës për Drejtësi Kosovo Law Institute Kosovski Institut Pravde

IMPUNITY OF CORRUPTION, RISK FOR SOCIETY AND THE STATE

THE SOLUTION: INTEGRITY, TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY?

PRISTINA, MARCH2019 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Authors: Betim Musliu and Ehat Miftaraj

Research, analysis and preparation of the monitoring report was supported by: Hyrije Mehmeti and Yll Zekaj

Jurists and monitors that contributed these three years in monitoring:

Adem Krasniqi, Alban Mehmetaj, Albulena Bajraktari, Albulena Huçaj, Amir Jakupi, Amir Bunjaku, Arbelina Dedushaj, Arbenita Imeri, Arbër Guta, Arrita Rezniqi, Avni Berisha, Belkise Berisha, Belkize Loshaj, Blerim Jakupi, Bukurezë Surdulli, Dardan Ukaj, Delvina Rexhepi, Dhurata Ramoja, Diana Berisha, Driton Nocaj, Edmond Marleku, Erestina Buja, Erlina Tafa, Fitore Sadiku, Fjolla Gaxha, Fjorda Vllasolli, Gita Lushi, Gzim Shala, Gzime Hashani, Hajrije Krasniqi, Kaltrina Ajvazi, Lavdim Bajraktari, Leotrim Gashi, Lirie Aliu, Lutfi Morina, Martin Komani, Medina Kadriu, Mentor Uka, Mirjeta Plakiqi, Mirvet Thaqi, Naim Sadiku, Nora Kelmendi, Ramiz Veliu, Rifadije Palloshi, Rita Gacaferri, Rita Mazrekaj, Sabina Pergega, Senad Lokaj, Shkelzen Selmanaj, Skender Govori, Syzana Rexhepi, Valdet Hajdini, Valentina Shahini Grajçevci, Verona Kadriu and Vjollca Qeriqi.

The "Strengthening rule of law" project is financially supported by the UK Ministry of Foreign Affairs through its Embassy in Pristina and NED.

The content of this publication is the exclusive responsibility of Kosovo Law Institute - KLI and it does not reflect the views of the UK Ministry of Foreign Affairs through its Embassy in Pristina and NED.

No part of this material may be printed, copied, or multiplied in any electronic or printed form, or multiplied in any other form without the consent of Kosovo Law Institute.

KLI thanks all the staff of the monitors, researchers, editors, professional associates, police officers, prosecutors, judges, lawyers and all resources that have collaborated and have impacted on the quality of the research. KLI addresses special thanks to the British Embassy in Kosovo for their support. Also, a special thanks is addressed to the US Embassy in Kosovo and NED, which have consistently supported projects that have created synergies to strengthen the monitoring of the justice system in handling corruption cases.

2 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

ABOUT KLI KLI, Kosovo Law Institute, is non- governmental and non-profit organization on public policy, a pecialized think tank for the justice sector.

KLI St. Rrustem Statovci Supported by: a Pristina E: [email protected] www.kli-ks.org

March 2019 Pristina, Republic of Kosovo

#! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Table of content

I. Executive summary ...... 7 II. Methodology ...... 11 III. Monitoring the implementation of the justice system policies on fighting corruption ...... 13 a) Monitoring the implementation of the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council policies in the fight against corruption ...... 13 b) Monitoring the implementation of the Kosovo Judicial Council policies in fighting corruption ....16 c) Public transparency and accountability of the judicial and prosecutorial system ...... 17 IV. Treatment of corruption cases by the prosecutorial system ...... 19 a. Preliminary investigations of corruption cases by the prosecutorial system ...... 19 b. Investigation of corruption cases by the prosecutorial system ...... 19 c. Manner in resolution of corruption cases at the investigation phase ...... 21 d. Raising indictments for corruption and the profile of the accused according to SP reports ...... 24 e. Efficiency of prosecutors at the Serious Crime Department ...... 25 V. Treatment of corruption cases by the judicial system ...... 27 a. Court decisions in corruption cases according to the KPC Tracking Mechanism ...... 27 b. Court decisions for corruption cases according to the KJC Tracking Mechanism ...... 28 c. Efficiency of Courts at the Serious Crime Department ...... 30 VI. KLI monitoring of judicial proceedings for corruption cases ...... 32 a. Court hearings on corruption cases monitored by KLI during three years ...... 32 b. Punishment policy in corruption cases ...... 34 c. Profile of individuals convicted for corruption by courts over three years (2016, 2017,2018) ...... 43 d. Punishment policy in high profile cases of corruption in past three years ...... 43 e. Duration of court proceedings in corruption cases ...... 48 VII. Legal violations of prosecutors and judges in handling corruption cases ...... 51 VIII. The performance of prosecutors and judges in handling high-profile corruption cases ...... 57 IX. Confiscation of assets benefitet thorugh criminal offences of corruption ...... 64 X. Special findings of KLI in the three-year monitoring of corruption court cases ...... 65 a. The battle of Councils for excuse in public regarding the failures in fighting corruption ...... 65 1. KJC-KPC conflict regarding the failures in fighting corruption ...... 65 1. The tendency of the Councils to fight corruption through recommendations ...... 68 b. Controlling, interfering and political influences in the prosecutorial system ...... 68 1. Centralizing high-profile investigations, unlawful control of the Chief State Prosecutor ...... 69 1. Interferences of Chief State Prosecutor’s Office in the investigations of corruption cases ...... 70 1. Political interferences of the Chief State Prosecutor in the Veterans’ case and Pronto case ...... 72

4

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

c. Interferences and threats of the Chief State Prosecutor on judges’ independence ...... 75 1. The phenomenon of prosecutors’ indictment withdrawal regarding corruption cases, without adequate reasoning ...... 76 1. Treating KJC and KPC as “departments” of the MoJ ...... 79 d. Fighting corruption without judicial control ...... 80 e. Failures to respect the Tracking Mechanism ...... 82 f. Delays to proceed corruption indictments by prosecutors ...... 83 g. Filing unprofessional indictments and the failure of prosecutors in court ...... 83 h. The statutory limitation of corruption cases ...... 88 i. Failure to prosecute cases published by media and civil society ...... 89 j. The manipulated file of the bar exam of Chief State Prosecutor ...... 90 k. Contested integrity of the prosecutors and judges regarding benefit of raise of salary ...... 93 XI. Accountability of prosecutors and judges after KLI’s reports ...... 95 XII. Recommendations of KLI ...... 98

5

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

ACRONYMS:

ACA Anti Corruption Agency TAK Tax Administration of Kosovo KPA Kosovo Property Agency Customs Kosovo Customs EULEX European Union Rule of Law Mission EU European Union BC Basic Court ECtHR European Court of Human Rights KLI Kosovo Law Institute PIK Police Inspectorate of Kosovo KPC Kosovo Prosecutorial Council KJC Kosovo Judicial Council NCFEC National Coordinator for Fighting Economic Crime CCRK Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo CPCRK Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo ECHR European Convention on Human Rights MoJ Ministry of Justice KBA Kosovo Bar Association PRB Procurement Review Body BP Basic Prosecution SPRK Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo AP Appellate Prosecution KP Kosovo Police PTK Post and Telecom of Kosovo PP Prosecution cases with criminal charges PPN Prosecution cases at the stage of gathering information AI Administrative Instructions ODC Office of the Disciplinary Counsel SPO State Prosecutor’s Office

6

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

I. Executive summary

Kosovo Law Institute (KLI) has entered in its sixth year of systematic monitoring of justice system manner of handling corruption cases. Findings in this report include actions of justice and security institutions regarding the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of corruption cases, including monitoring of the approval and implementation of the laws, policies and strategies addressing the fight against corruption for three years (2016, 2017, 2018). KLI findings during these years show that corruption in Kosovo is endemic. In Kosovo there is no lack of lwas and policies to fight corruption. There is lack of political will. Politics and interest groups have produced a justice system, which does not produce justice and judicial safety, but it is turned into a persecution mechanism against certain individuals, in the name of the fight against corruption and as an effective tool to offer impunity and amnesty for certain individuals within the justice system, politics and interest groups. Fighting high- profile corruption in Kosovo, starts and ends by political statements demanding to report corruption in Prosecution offices or Police. There is lack of transparency and accountability of the main stakeholders on the justice system to answer the corruption phenomenon, which is risking rule of law and European integration. Kosovo in several reports published by European Union mechanisms has started to be called a captured state. In the last three years KLI has shown that the fight against corruption has started and ended in policy drafting. In the name of the fight against corruption, the justice system has approved unlawful policies, through which it has centralized investigation and prosecution of high- profile corruption individuals, thus interfering severely in the independence of the prosecutors. Such a strategy of justice institutions was shown really efficient to build the culture of impunity regarding high-profile officials and thus lowering citizens’ trust in this system. KLI is the only organization that systematically monitors justice systems’ manner of handling corruption cases. During these three years (2016, 2017, 2018) it has monitored and reported on 518 judgements rendered by Basic Courts, including 996 individuals accused of corruption. Of these judgements, it results that courts, against 176 individuals (17.7%) have imposed effective imprisonment, against 178 individuals (17.9%) have imposed suspended punishments, against 98 individuals (9.8%) have imposed punishments of a fine, whereas 544 individuals (54.6%) have been acquitted of corruption charges. Of these 996 individuals accused of corruption, 442 individuals are part of low profile, 516 individuals are part of medium profile and 38 individuals are part of low profile. Based on the last three years analysis of high-profile corruption cases manner of handling, it results that there is still not any high-profile official who has been punished by effective imprisonment on corruption charges by a final court judgement. KLI findings show that for three years (January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2018), courts have handled 59 indictments against 68 high-profile individuals, that have been filed earlier or during this period of time. Among those are 13 senior officials who are accused more than once. It is worth mentioning that only against former Mayor of Kllokot, Sasha Mirkoviq have been filed 7 indictments.

7

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Of 68 high-profile officials, Basic Courts as first instance for 9 high-profile officials have dismissed indictments, for 16 officials have rendered judgements of acquittal, for 5 officials have rendered rejection judgements, whereas against 11 high-profile officials, courts have imposed punishments. Against 27 high-profile officials, proceedings are still ongoing in the first instance. Out of 11 convicted officials, the courts against 8 senior officials have imposed suspended imprisonment, whereas against one official was imposed punishment of a fine. Whereas, only in two cases have imposed effective imprisonment, both three years of effective imprisonment, one against former Head of PRB Hysni Hoxha, and the other against former Mayor of Lipjan Shukri Buja. Hoxha is acquitted from the Court of Appeals, whereas Shukri Buja’s case is still in appellate procedure in Court of Appeals. KLI based on the monitoring findings, in legal and procedural aspect, assesses that prosecutors and judges face systematic problems while handling corruption cases. Based on the official data of the prosecutorial system, it results that prosecutors for three years have solved cases against 2838 individuals suspected of corruption. Findings show that out of those, against 1809 individuals or 64% of them, corruption cases are closed in Prosecution offices, without going through judicial control. Against 981 individuals or 34% indictments have been filed, while against 48 individuals or less than 1% of them, cases have ben solved in another manner. Cases closed in prosecution offices violate the applicable law, are not accessible to the public or NGOs who monitor this system. The chances of abusing in such cases are extremely high. Some of these cases have been discussed by KLI throughout systematical monitoring and specific researches, that have peen published. Prosecutorial system, exceptionally, publishes individual cases that are closed in this stage of procedure when those are related to political individuals or individuals inside the prosecutorial system, with the only intention to rehabilitate these individuals publicly. The average of duration of criminal proceedings in corruption cases, based on KLI analysis, results in the last three years to be approximately the same. Handling of a corruption case, since filing the criminal report and until the announcement of the judgement took almost 3 years or 1054 days. This testifies that prosecutors and judges, constantly violate the law and do not respect prosecutorial and judicial systems’ policies regarding the handling of corruption cases prior to others. Based on the official data of the justice system, during these three years, judges have rendered judgements against 740 individuals who have been charged of corruption. Findings show that out of this number, 101 individuals (13.6%) have been punished with effective imprisonment, 128 individuals (17.2%) have been punished with a fine, 145 individuals (19.5%) have been punished with a suspended punishment, whereas 252 individuals (34%) individuals have been acquitted. 6 individuals have been punished with other punishments, whereas against 108 individuals, cases have been solved in other manner. KLI constantly has found that judges face serious problems while administering corruption cases in court. For three years, out of 3994 monitored court hearings by KLI, 1134 (29%) hearings have been postponed because of the absence of the prosecutors or judges.

8

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

KLI findings also show that as a result of lowering the trust of citizens in the justice institutions, there has been a decrease in the filing of criminal reports by citizens and injured parties. Despite the fact that the judicial and prosecutorial system constantly proclaims transparency, the practice proves the opposite. For three years, KLI has addressed 837 requests for access to public documents and received positive answers in 391 (47%) requests, negative response in 92 (11%) requests, and received no response at 354 (42%) request.

KLI findings have consistently affected to increase the transparency and accountability of prosecutors and judges in handling corruption cases. As a result of the findings published in the KLI’s reports, the Office of the Disciplinary Council (ODC) has so far included over 850 cases in preliminary investigations against prosecutors and judges. During these three years, the ODC has specifically engaged the staff of inspectors in addressing the findings of KLI’s periodical reports. Regarding the handling of these cases, the ODC did not systematize specific data, but by the end of 2017, it notified that against a number of prosecutors have ascertained the violations identified by KLI and against these prosecutors have been initiated disciplinary measures. Also, for a large number of prosecutors and judges, violations identified by KLI have been ascertained, which have been sent to the Performance Evaluation Commission regarding each of them.

KLI based on the findings of the monitoring and evaluation process of the fight against corruption, consistently in these three years, within the three year project “Strengthening the rule of law” supported by the British Embassy in Kosovo provided specific recommendations on how to implement legal obligations and policies in the fight against corruption. Below are shown the main recommendations addressed to the justice institutions in these three years (same and recurring recommendations, which have not been implemented, have been removed). In this table 117 recommendations are presented, out of which 37 were implemented, 49 were partially implemented, and 31 recommendations were not implemented.

Over three years, KLI has published over 20 research reports and analyzes addressing the fight against corruption. In this report specific topics in the fight against corruption have been analyzed, including: “the battle” of mutual accusations between the Judicial Council and the Prosecutorial Council regarding failures in the fight against corruption, the tendency that these Counsels have in fight corruption through recommendations, the control, interferences, political influence, centralization of the fight against corruption by the Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi and his interferences in specific cases, fighting corruption without judicial control, failures in the tracking mechanism, filing unprofessional indictments and failures to defend them in court, the statutory limitation of corruption cases, the manipulated file of the Chief Prosecutor Lumezi’s bar exam and the disputed integrity of the justice system due to the benefit from the decision to increase salaries.

The rule of law in 2019 still remains an overwhelming challenge, with institutions and certain individuals who run these institutions with disputed integrity and credibility. Despite the citizens and international partners’ request to strengthen the rule of law sector, KLI findings conclude that Kosovo from the initial stage of the rule of law has regressed, returning to a

9

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 captured state where the justice amnesties corrupt officials and does not comply with constitutional and legal obligations in a fair, impartial and independent manner.

With this disputed integrity of the justice system, no progress can be made. KLI restates its recommendation to initiate the constitutional and legal changes to prepare the deep vetting process in the judicial, prosecutorial and police system, to build a system with integrity, that is transparent accountable to the citizens.

10

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

II. Methodology In order to compile a more comprehensive and analytical report on the handling of corruption cases by the prosecutorial and judicial system, KLI has used mixed research methodology. The main reason of using such methodology is because the prosecutorial system and the judicial system still face problems in unifying the data. Therefore, the research of the handling of corruption cases by the prosecutorial and judicial system is based on direct monitoring of the performance of prosecution offices and courts regarding law enforcement, policies and action plans on handling of priority corruption cases.

KLI based on legal obligations and action plans has created clear indicators to measure the progress of their implementation by the prosecutorial system and judicial system. The research includes monitoring of corruption cases in seven Basic Prosecution Offices, Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo, seven Basic Courts and their Branch Courts, as well as the Court of Appeals. KLI has provided statistical data from the Prosecution Performance Review Unit and the Statistics Department of the Judicial Council, as well as has collected individual data throughout the monitoring process on all prosecution offices and courts.

Reports provided by KLI are summarized in a database that has included all cases of corruption and individuals involved in these cases at all stages of criminal proceedings in the prosecutorial system and judicial system.

The database has been used to identify the most disturbing issues related to the implementation of legal obligations and obligations of the action plans, respectively related to the solution, the way of solving and non-solving of corruption cases by prosecutors and judges. Using statistics, KLI, has analyzed some aspects that are presented and remarked over tables and graphics, including all specifics of corruption cases for each prosecutor and court, for each submitter of the corruption case, and the solution of a case.

KLI researchers, from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018, monitored 3994 court hearings. KLI has created clear indicators to analyze the handling of corruption cases throughout all stages of the criminal proceedings, including the stage from the filing of the criminal report until the announcement of the judgement by the first instance courts.

KLI has continuously monitored the activities of the Review Committees regarding corruption cases of KPC and KJC, Basic Prosecutions, Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo, Basic Courts, Court of Appeals, Kosovo Prosecutorial Council and Kosovo Judicial Council. With all prosecutorial and judicial function bearers, throughout the year, KLI has conducted in-depth interviews, based on indicators determined in accordance with legal obligations and obligations of the action plans. Conducted interviews have been codified so the issues and information that emerged from them are included in the report.

As usual, in order to be as precise as possible in identifying problems and suggesting recommendations to solve problems in fighting corruption, respectively in the most efficient and effective implementation of the legal obligations and obligations of the action plans, KLI

11 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 has analyzed the legal basis, and has analyzed in detail relevant national and international documents related to the fight against corruption in Kosovo.

12 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

III. Monitoring the implementation of the justice system policies on fighting corruption

KLI is the only organisation that from November 2013 systematically monitors the judicial and prosecutorial system on the implementation of the legal framework and policies in the treatment of corruption cases. KLI continuously assessed as positive the formal policies of the prosecutorial and judicial system in fighting corruption, with the exception of certain cases that were drafted in violation of the law. 1 KPC2 and KJC3 have adopted Action Plans to address corruption cases with the highest priority. A worrying problem remains the non- implementation of these policies in practice. Despite some positive movements, concrete results in fighting corruption, especially against high profiles, continue to be lacking. Kosovo, as a new country and based on its past throughout history, especially the period of political and social transition has been reflected as "weak in dealing with the phenomenon of corruption. Moreover, according to many studies conducted, it turns out that Kosovo is ranked among the countries with high levels of corruption. Corruption in Kosovo continues to be considered endemic. 4

a) Monitoring the implementation of the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council policies in the fight against corruption KPC on 1 December 2015, adopted its Strategic Plan (2016-2018) and Action Plan on Increasing the Efficiency of the Prosecutorial System in fighting Corruption and Economic Crime, including Seizure and Confiscation of Illegal Assets (hereafter referred to as: Action Plan). This Action Plan has defined several goals such as: reducing the number of unresolved cases, increasing efficiency of solving new cases, increasing the level of cooperation with other institutions, capacity building through specialised training,

1 Note: KLI has reacted against some of the unlawful provisions within the Strategic Plan (2016-2018) and the Action Plan on Increasing the Efficiency of the Prosecutorial System in fighting Corruption and Economic Crime, including Seizure and Confiscation of Illegal Asset adopted by the KPC on 1 December 2015. Kosovo Prosecutorial Council. 1 December 2015. 2 Note: KPC for the first time in the framework of implementing the Strategic Plan for Inter-Institutional Cooperation in Fighting Organized Crime and Corruption, on 4 November 2013, issued an Action Plan to increase the efficiency of the prosecutorial system in fighting corruption. This Action Plan outlined in detail the obligations of the prosecutor's offices and the expectations of the KPC regarding the increase of efficiency in solving corruption cases. On 27 December 2013, KPC signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Kosovo Law Institute to monitor the implementation of this plan. KPC also on 1 December 2015 approved the Strategic Plan (2016-2018) and the Action Plan to Raise Efficiency of the Prosecutorial System in Fighting Corruption and Economic Crimes, including the Seizure and Confiscation of Illegal Assets. Kosovo Prosecutorial Council. 1 December 2015. 3 Note: KLI’s initiative for the implementation of recommendations published in analytical reports related to effective handling of corruption cases by the judicial and prosecutorial system, KLI held meetings with the Chair of the KJC, Mr. Enver Peci, who expressed willingness for cooperation in drafting the Action Plan for Resolving Corruption Cases. KLI drafted this Plan, which with the amendments of the KJC was approved on 25 September 2015. “Action Plan for the Resolution of Corruption Cases”. Kosovo Judicial Council. 25 September 2015. 4 The European Commission Progress Report and the American State Department Report regarding Human Rights in Kosovo have repeatedly highlighted that the corruption level in Kosovo is high, including political influence within the justice system.

13 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 accountability and transparency. 5 This plan has never been available on the KPC website6. However, KLI has managed to attain a copy of the Strategic and Anction Plan.

Failure of implementing the obligations deriving from the KPC Action Plan

KLI findings show that the KPC has continuously expressed the will to fight corruption through policies, while practise shows that the same policies are not adopted. Mechanisms established to fulfil obligations or monitor the implementation of plans have not taken these plans and obligations seriously. Prosecutors, staff and KPC mechanisms repeatedly have serious problems in respecting the Tracking Mechanism, where statistical data for the treatment of cases is reported.7 What is constantly seen is that the KPC has not undertaken any actions against any officials or held accountable for the failure in the implementation of the anti-corruption policies. The paradox is the fact that the KPC itself has rendered decisions that hold officials accountable for the failures of the Tracking Mechanism, but have not implemented such decisions. For the non effective and efficient treatment of corruption cases, Chief Prosecutors have repeatedly complained of the insufficient number of prosecutors and other objective factors, of which, according to them, have affected the failure to resolve corruption cases on time. 8 KLI considers that this proves the cultivation of impunity culture installed since the old Action Plan on the treatment of corruption cases adopted on 4 November 2013.

Resolution of corruption cases according to the deadlines prescribed by the Action Plan – Article 3 of the Action Plan adopted in December 2015, foresaw that unresolved corruption and economic cases, including seizure and confiscation of illegal assets accepted from year 2001 to 2010, to be completed until 30 June 2016. KPC failed to adopt this obligation in practice. This failure of the Supervisory Committee9 for the implementation of the Strategic Plan and Plan in fighting corruption and economic crime was reported as success of the KPC. According to the Committees report, all corruption cases until 2010 with the acceptance of

5 This Strategic Plan contains almost all obligations and responsibilities defined in the action Plan on Increasing the Efficiency of the Prosecutorial System in fighting Corruption, adopted on 4 November 2013 by KPC. KPC for the first time adopted the Action Plan for Increasing the Efficiency of Prosecutorial System in fighting corruption on 4 November 2013. 6KLI requested from KPC and State Prosecutors Office access to the Strategic Plan adopted by KPC, however received negative response regarding the request that was in accordance with the Law on Access to Public Documents. The response given by the KPC official in charge of access to public documents was as follows: “Kosovo Prosecutorial Council on 1 December 2015, has adopted Strategic Plan (2016-2018) and Action Plan on increasing the efficiency of the Prosecutorial system in fighting corruption and economic crime, including seizure and confiscation of illegal assets, however, this plan will be complemented with recommendations by the Council members and international representatives that support the work of the Council. After the amendments to these recommendations, the Plan will be published on State Prosecutors and Prosecutorial Council web page”. This plan has never been published on the KP web page. 7 Note: KLI, during monitoring has continuously identified cases registered with delay on the Tracking Mechanism and other cases that do not on the Tracking Mechanism database, even though the same existed in the previous registry database. 8 KLI interviews with the Chair of the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council, Mr. Blerim Isufaj and all Chief State Prosecutors of all Prosecution Offices of all levels in the Republic of Kosovo. 2016, 2017. 9 KPC assigned a Supervisory Committee on the implementation of the Action Plan in treating corruption and economic crime cases, with the composition of Mr. Haxhi Dërguti, Chief State Prosecutor of the Appellate Prosecution in Pristina, Laura Pula, Prosecutor at the Office of the State Prosecutor and Mr. Lulëzim Sylejmani, Prosecutor at the Office of the State Prosecutor.

14 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 three cases, were resolved.10 KLI found this to be false because up until 31 December 2016, SP still had at work 17 unresolved corruption cases with 51 persons involved, that belong to the period from 2002 to 2010 and not 3 cases that were reported by the KPC Committee. Deadlines for the completion of cases have repeatedly been violated by prosecutors and despite measures defined in the plan to be undertaken against the perpetrators and Chief State prosecutors, there have been no concrete actions for implementation in action. Consequently, the culture of impunity has been cultivated.

KPC quarterly reports - Article 4 of the action Plan foresaw the establishment of the Supervisory Committee regarding the handling of corruption cases by prosecutors, monitoring the implementation of the strategy and reporting to KPC on a quarterly basis. This committee in 2016 failed to comply with the obligation to report under the Action Plan. During 2016 the Committee reported only once before the KPC, on 16 September 2016.11 Failures in regular reporting under the Action Plan continued in 2017, in which the Committee reported only three times before the KPC on 16 May and 25 September 2017.12 Following repeated criticism by KLI for these failures and recommendations for regular reporting, the Committee during 2018, has reported on a regular quarterly basis. During 2018 they have reported four times.13

Reporting on seizure and confiscated assets for criminal offences against corruption- The Action Plan has determined that the National Coordinator for Fighting Economic Crime (NCFC) will monitor the cases that relate to economic crimes, including seizure and confiscation of illegal assets. It is worth highlighting that NCFC has fulfilled its obligation for reporting to the KPC regarding its activities relating to seizure and confiscation of illegal assets. However, NCFC has failed to provide information before the KPC regarding the requests for seizure and confiscation of assets attained through criminal offence of corruption. Even after three years there is no information about whether assets seized or confiscated have assets belonging to criminal offenses against corruption.

Reviewing Plans and harmonizing them with the law - KLI in the report published on April 27, 2016, "Corruption in Kosovo: Fighting or Promoting Corruption" found that the provisions of the Strategic Plan and Action Plan were in violation of the basic laws that regulate the prosecutorial system in Kosovo. KLI has recommended to the KPC that these

10 Supervisory Committee during reporting before the KPC for the 2016 report has presented only three incompleted cases that belong to cases before 2010. Prosecutor Laura Pula, during the presentation of the report, said that of these three cases, two are not resolved with the argument that they are suspended due to international arrest warrants in the absence of defendants, while one case is still in process of gathering information. KPC Supervisory Committee report. 1 February 2017. 11 Supervisory Committee reported for the first time before the KPC during September 2016. 12 Supervisory Committee for the second time reported (period January-December 2016) before the KPC at the 128th meeting held on 1 February 2017; for the third time they reported (period January – March 2017) before the KPC at the 133rd meeting held on 16 ay 2017; whereas for the fourth time they reported (period January- June 2017) before the KPC at the 138th meeting held on 25 September 2017. 13 The Supervisory Committee for the fifth time reported (for the period January-December 2017) to KPC at the 148th meeting held on 23 February 2018; for the sixth time reported (for the period January-March 2018) in front of KPC at the 152th meeting held on 30 May 2018; for the seventh time reported (for the period January- June 2018) in front of KPC at the 156th meeting held on September 7, 2018; and for the eighth time reported (for the period January-September 2018) to KPK at the 159th meeting held on December 24, 2018.

15 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 plans be amended urgently to harmonize them in accordance with applicable laws and best international practices. The KLI recommended that special attention should be paid to the individual independence of prosecutors and chief prosecutors. KPC informed the KLI that KPC will make changes and additions to these plans with the recommendations received from Council members and international representatives supporting the work of the Council and that they will then be published on the site. Plans have expired, while KPC did not take any action to improve the unlawful provisions of these plans and has not even made their publication.

b) Monitoring the implementation of the Kosovo Judicial Council policies in fighting corruption KJC in cooperation with KLI, for the first time with the initiative of KLI drafted an Action Plan for the KJC to address corruption cases with priority. This Plan was approved on 25 September 2015 by the KJC.14 The implementation of this plan continues to be challenged in practice as a result huge caseload of judges and also as a result of the unwillingness to address corruption cases as a priority, as defined in the Action Plan.

Failure to implement the obligation of the Action Plan by the Kosovo Judicial Council

KLI has monitored the implementation of the obligations arising from the aforementioned plans from the Courts, Commissions and KJC. The findings show that the KJC has continued to express the will to fight corruption through policies, while in practice it is proved that the same policies are not implemented. KLI considers that the mechanisms established to fulfill the obligations or monitor the implementation of the plans have not taken these plans and obligations seriously. KJC so far has not taken any action against anyone or held anyone accountable for failures in the implementation of anti-corruption policies. For the non- efficient and effective handling of corruption cases, the Court Presidents complain about the insufficient number of judges and other objective factors which, according to them, have affected the non-resolution of these cases on time.15

Resolving corruption cases pursuant to legal deadlines - KLI findings show that the cases monitored for corruption offences, the majority of judges of these cases did not respect the deadlines of the criminal procedure. The majority of the appointments of the initial hearing, second review and main hearing was done in violation of the legal deadlines. This poses a serious concern for the rights of defendants in criminal procedure and directly affects the loss of citizens’ confidence in the judicial system.

Reporting according to the deadlines prescribed in the Action Plan - Through the Action Plan, KJC has defined concrete activities and practical timeframes to increase the efficiency of handling corruption cases. Deadlines foreseen in the plan were never respected by the

14 KLI has supported the KJC with drafting the Action Plan on increasing the efficiency of the Judicial system in the treatment of corruption cases. KLI drafted the Action Plan for the KJC, a plan with some additions was adopted by the KJC on 25 September 2015 15 KLI interviews with the Chair of the Kosovo Judicial Council, Mr. Nehat Idrizi and all Court Presidents of all levels in the Republic of Kosovo. 2016, 2017, 2018.

16 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Commission and the KJC. The reports of the Supervisory Committee, although submitted to the KJC on a quarterly basis, have only been reported once to the KJC on 6 April 2016. 16

c) Public transparency and accountability of the judicial and prosecutorial system KJC and KPC continuously proclaim increasing transparency and accountability in relation to the public and the media. Both Councils have adopted regulations and strategies to increase transparency and accountability and facilitate cooperation with the public and the media.

KLI during the monitoring of the judicial and prosecutorial system during the three years (2016, 2017, 2018) has addressed 837 requests for access to public documents regarding the fulfillment of legal obligations, sharing of information, statistics and other available and permissible data according to the Law on Access to Public Documents. Out of the 837 requests, KLI received positive responses to 391 requests or 47% of them. Negative answers to 92 requests or 11% of them, while KLI received no response to 354 requests or 42% of them. Consequently, it turns out that the judicial system and the prosecutorial system in half of KLI's requests did not respond positively.

Below are the number of requests addressed by KLI to the judicial and prosecutorial system and the answers to these requests.

KLI requests on access to public documents to the judicial and prosecutorial system in three years - 2016, 2017, 2018.

!%# !"# ,-./0/12!34.526 72830/12!34.526

$$# 7-!34.526

Graph 1 – Number of KLI requests on access to public documents to the judicial and prosecutorial system over the last three years 2016, 2017and2018.

16 Interview with Mr. Agim Maliqi, Chair of the Supervisory Committee for the supervision of Corruption Cases. March 2017 and March 2018. (see link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/emisionet/rastet-e-shenjestruara- liberalizimi-i-vizave/)

*'! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Below are the number of requests addressed by KLI to the judicial system and the answers to these requests over the three years 2016, 2017 and 2018.

KLI requests to the judicial system on access to public documents over the three years (2016,2017,2018) Year No. requests Positive Percentage Negative Percentag No Percentage answer answer e response 2016 84 48 57% 0 0% 36 43% 2017 127 88 69% 19 15% 20 16% 2018 266 146 54% 18 6% 102 40% Total 477 282 59% 37 7% 158 44% Table 1 – Number of requests made by KLI on access to public documents to the judicial system over the three years 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Below are the number of requests addressed by KLI to the prosecutorial system and answers to the requests over the three years 2016, 2017 and 2018.

KLI requests to the prosecutorial system on access to public documents over the three years (2016,2017,2018)

Year No. requests Positive Percentage Negative Percentag No Percentag answer answer e response e 2016 111 46 41% 2 2% 63 57% 2017 141 21 15% 42 29% 78 56% 2018 108 42 39% 11 10% 55 51% Total 360 109 30% 55 15% 196 55% Table 2 – Number of requests made by KLI on access to public documents to the prosecutorial system over the three years 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Failure to implement the legal obligations and policies adopted by the two Councils strengthens the findings of the KLI and assessments from international and local reports on the lack of will of the judicial and prosecutorial system to be transparent and accountable to the public. Failure to fulfill obligations proves that the law in Kosovo does not apply the same to all. In cases where senior officials fail to fulfill their obligations and responsibilities, the culture of impunity continues to be cultivated.

18 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

IV. Treatment of corruption cases by the prosecutorial system

a. Preliminary investigations of corruption cases by the prosecutorial system

The prosecutorial system during 2016 received at work 433 cases of corruption in preliminary proceedings with 705 people involved. During the same period, prosecutors have managed to solve 274 cases with 457 persons. During 2017 and 2018, prosecutors have managed to solve more cases than they have received at work. While in 2017 they received at work 427 cases with 680 persons, in the same period they solved 464 cases of the previous years with 760 persons involved. In 2018, this institution has solved 529 cases with 913 persons. While SP at the end of 2016 had 700 corruption cases in the pre-trial phase remaining at work with 1201 people involved, by the end of 2018, this number fell to 600 cases with 1052 people involved.

Corruption Transferred Received at Total at work Resolved Remaining at cases at the from previous work work preliminary years phase Cases/Persons C P C P C P C P C P 2016 541 953 433 705 974 1658 274 457 700 1201 2017 632 1164 427 680 1059 1844 464 760 595 1084 2018 599 1056 443 746 1129 1965 529 913 600 1052 Table 3 – Corruption cases at preliminary investigation phase over three years 2016, 2017, 2018.

b. Investigation of corruption cases by the prosecutorial system

Based on the analysis of statistics from the Tracking Mechanism approved by the KPC, regarding the treatment of corruption cases in 2016, 2017 and 2018, it results that there is a decrease in the reporting of corruptive offenses as compared to the number of cases and persons . While in 2016 in SP, 438 corruption cases were filed with 849 people involved, in 2017 this number dropped to 402 cases and 668 people. While, in 2018, only 325 cases were filed against 656 persons as suspected of corruption.

The efficiency of SP in the treatment of corruption cases in 2016, 2017 and 2018 has declined. While during 2016 SP resolved 468 corruption cases against 1164 people, efficiency in 2017 declined, where 412 cases against 902 people suspected of corruption were resolved. Whereas, in 2018, SP resolved 408 cases with 772 people involved.

While SP at the end of 2016, had at work 447 unresolved cases with 1248 people involved, at the end of 2018 this number declined to 230 unresolved cases with 617 people involved as suspects in corruption.

19 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Corruption Transferred Received at Total at work Resolved Remaining at cases through from previous work work the years years Cases/Persons C P C P C P C P C P 2016 477 1553 438 849 915 2412 468 1164 447 1248 2017 391 1097 402 668 793 1765 412 902 301 715 2018 303 707 325 656 638 1389 408 772 230 617 Table 4 – Cases of corruption criminal reports over three years 2016, 2017, 2018.

9 )*%!:3.2.!-;!:-66<=0/-4!30!5-6> 2016 9 "$*"!/4?/1/?<3@.

9 ')#!:3.2.!-;!:-66<=0/-4!30!5-6> 2017 9 *'&%!/4?/1/?<3@.

9 &#(!:3.2.!-;!:-66<=0/-4!30!5-6> 2018 9 *#()!/4?/1/?<3@.

Graph 2 – Comparison of trateent of cases through years 2016, 2017 and 2018 SP during 2016 had the highest number of cases of corruption at work, altogether 915 cases with 2412 persons involved. In 2016, the largest number of corruption cases was solved, totaling 468 with 1164 persons. The number of cases at work and persons involved in those cases has consistently declined in subsequent years, but what is noticed is that the number of resolved cases has decreased.

"+! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

• 468 resolved :3.2.!-;!:-66<=0/-4 2016 • 1164 individuals

• 412 resolved :3.2.!-;!:-66<=0/-4 2017 • 902 individuals

• 408 resolved :3.2.!-;!:-66<=0/-4 2018 • 772 individuals

Graph 3 – Comparison of the number of resolved corruption cases through the years. c. Manner in resolution of corruption cases at the investigation phase

The State Prosecutor during 2016-2018 has resolved corruption cases against 2838 persons, where 1063 people have dismissed reports, 746 people have had investigations ceased and 981 people have had indictments filed against them.

Dismissal of Cease of Indictment Other manner Total investigation of resolution Year criminal reports 2016 480 257 418 9 1164 2017 335 250 312 5 902 2018 248 239 251 34 772 Total 1063 746 981 48 2838 Table 5 – Comparison of the number of resolved corruption cases through the years.

The following is a graph of corruption cases treated by prosecutors in the three years 2016, 2017 and 2018, including the number of persons to whom criminal reports have been dismissed, investigations have been terminated and indictments have been filed.

"*! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

DISMISSAL TERMINATION INDICTMENT 746 individuals 981 individuals 1063 individuals

Graph 4 – Number of suspected persons involved in corruption against whom Criminal reports were dismissed, investigations were terminated and indictments were filed.

Based on the analysis of the statistical data deriving from the KPC tracking mechanism, it appears that prosecutions for three years, in 63.8% of cases have closed (including dismissal and termination) to persons suspected of corruption, respectively closing these cases without going through judicial control. While in 34.6% of cases they have filed indictments against persons suspected of corruption. Prosecutions against 48 persons have solved cases in another manner or at 1.5% of them.

Treatment of corruption cases in Basic Prosecution Offices and SPRK

At the end of 2018, SP have remained at work 230 unsolved cases of corruption with 617 people involved, out of 447 cases with 1248 persons that this institution had at the end of 2016. The State Prosecutor within three years has almost halved the number of corruption cases, taking into account also the assistance and support provided by the KLI, whether through drafting action plans for KPC and BC in Pristina regarding the handling of cases of corruption, systematic monitoring of these cases and providing concrete recommendations.

Based on the analysis of statistical data deriving from the Tracking Mechanism it shows that a large number of Basic Prosecution’s at the end of 2018 have a small number of corruption cases whereas the BP in Peja at the end of 2018 has only one case with 7 persons involved, Gjilan has 8 cases with 13 persons involved, Gjakova has 15 cases and 23 persons involved.

22 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Prosecution Pristina Prizren Mitrovica Peja office

Years 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 C 159 208 148 39 13 41 33 35 17 61 38 24 Cases received P 280 319 326 80 25 76 91 51 22 92 57 42 Cases resolved C 207 210 185 33 11 45 23 29 41 63 45 31 P 553 476 365 71 22 66 60 82 80 99 68 47 Cases C 223 137 90 27 5 20 82 82 63 21 9 1 remaining P 655 352 319 69 10 50 192 151 96 40 11 7 unsolved Table 6 – The state of corruption cases in these Prosecutions in three years 2016, 2017, 2018.

A characteristic in the treatment of corruption cases presents the SPRK, a prosecution office that can be seen that compared to previous years, does not always exercise its additional competencies in the handling of corruption cases. While this prosecution, in 2016 had received at work 12 corruption cases, in 2017 had received only four new cases, whereas in 2018, received six new corruption casest.

Prosecution Gjakova Gjilan Ferizaj SPRK office

Years 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 C 22 31 31 94 47 40 18 26 18 12 4 6 Cases P 31 44 47 20 80 71 32 75 34 42 17 38 received 1 Cases C 18 34 32 83 48 43 20 21 22 21 14 9 resolved P 28 53 46 17 80 73 28 66 36 155 55 59 0 Cases C 19 15 15 19 12 8 17 22 19 39 19 14 remaining P 35 21 23 48 25 13 47 57 59 162 88 50 unsolved Table 7 – The state of corruption cases in these Prosecutions in three years 2016, 2017, 2018.

Furthermore, the efficiency and performance of this prosecution in the last two years is at the lowest level. While this prosecution in 2016 resolved 21 cases with 150 persons, in 2018, the same has only resolved 9 cases with 59 persons involved. Moreover, at the end of 2018, this prosecution office has 14 cases with 50 persons involved, whilst at the end of 2016 it had 39 cases with 162 persons involved.

The largest number of unresolved cases remains within the Basic Prosecution in Pristina, which in 2019 started with 90 unresolved corruption cases with 319 persons involved. Also, the BP in Pristina, during 2018 was the most efficient prosecution in the treatment of cases of this nature. This prosecution during this reporting period has resolved 185 cases with 365 persons. This prosecution has also managed to reduce the number of corruption cases. While

23 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 the same prosecution at the end of 2016 had 223 incompleted cases with 655 persons, this number in 2018 has fallen to only 90 cases with 319 persons involved.

Submitters of criminal reports

According to the KPC Tracking Mechanism, during 2016-2018, SP received from submitters of criminal reports 1157 corruption cases with 2171 persons involved. The largest number of criminal reports was submitted my the Kosovo Police with 452 criminal reports against 934 persons involved, followed by ACA with 240 criminal reports against 273 persons involved. The injured parties for the last three years have submitted 161 criminal reports against 319 persons involved, whereas citizens have submitted to SP 108 criminal reports against 223 persons involved.

SUBMITTERS TOTAL:

Cases Persons 1 ACA 240 273 2 KPA 2 2 3 KFA 4 4 4 KTA 4 4 5 Customs 3 14 6 IP 161 319 7 RIC 88 185 8 PIK 45 126 9 KBA 8 17 10 Kosovo Police 452 934 11 SP 27 54 12 C 108 223 13 OP 11 12 14 GA 3 3 15 Municipal Advocate 1 1 Total 1157 2171 Table 8 – Submitters of criminal reports through three years 2016, 2017, 2018. d. Raising indictments for corruption and the profile of the accused according to SP reports

KLI has consistently monitored and analyzed the profile of perpetrators of corruption offenses based on the information published by SP in its official website during the three years.

24

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

This institution has informed the public and has published on their web-page only 65 indictments filed against 376 persons.

The profile of the positions of the persons against whom the indictments have been filed, include: Ministers, former MP’s, former President of the Court, Mayor, former Mayor, Secretary General in the Ministry, Chief Inspector, Municipal Director, Municipal Assembly, School Director , former Director of Economic Crimes in the Kosovo Police, Member of the Governmental Commission for Recognition and Verification of Nation Status, Martyrs, Invalids, Veterans, Members and Internants of the KLA War, and mainly middle and low levels.

According to the indictments raised by Prosecution turns out that these criminal offenses, the damage caused reaches the sum of over 71,000,000 euro, whereas in most of these indictments there is no information on the damage caused.

On the other hand, in these indictments there is no information if the prosecution has made a request for the seizure or confiscation of assets attained through criminal offenses.

On the SP web page, for this reporting period, the public is only informed about the filed indictment involving a corruption case from the BP in Pristina, Peja, Prizren, Gjilan, SPRK, SPO and EULEX.

The most efficient prosecution during these three years, based on the findings published by PS, shows to be BP Pristina with 3 indictments against 7 persons, BP in Prizren with 25 indictments filed against 69 persons, then SPRK with 22 indictments against 203 persons, followed by BP Peja with 8 indictments filed against 15 persons, SPO with 1 indictment against 64 persons, EULEX with one indictment against 6 persons and BP Gjilan with 5 indictments against 12 persons.

Furthermore, see the end of this report the table in annex 1 for all the cases of indictments raised that the SP is notified about.17 e. Efficiency of prosecutors at the Serious Crime Department

KLI has analysed the performance of prosecutors in the treatment of cases at the Serious Crime Department during the last three years 2016, 2017, 201818. The reason for this performance review of prosecutors is that these prosecutors are in charge of corruptive cases. This does not mean that these prosecutors have worked exclusively on corruption cases, because they have been engaged in resolving other types of cases. However, the analysis of statistical data shows that there is a decrease in the performance of Prosecutors, and consequently prosecutions over the years. Based on the official data, it turns out that some prosecutors have very good performance, exceeding the orientation rates of prosecutors for

17Note: Please refer to annex 1 for all cases with indictments raised over the three years that SP has notified the public through press release, that includes the notification date, profile of the accused, value of the damage casued, seizure/confiscation requests of assets, number of persons accused and from which prosecution the indictment was raised. 18Source: Annual reports i the Work of the State Prosecutor

25

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

conducting cases determined by the KPC through the Administrative Instruction, while some prosecutors have much lower performance than the orientation norms. The Administrative Instruction on the orientation norms for prosecutors at the Serious Crime Department has stipulated the obligation that every prosecutor should complete 66 cases within a calendar year.

Prosecution

office based on orientation orientation on based of cases resolved in 2017 in resolved cases of

Number of cases resolved in 2016 in resolved cases of Number prosecutors of Number resolved cases of number Average prosecutors by orientation on based Performance norms Number prosecutors of Number resolved cases of number Average prosecutors by the on based Performance rate orientation 2018 in resolved cases of Number prosecutors of Number resolved cases of number Average prosecutors by Performance norms 2016 2017 2018 Pristina 1371 16 86 130% 888 18 49 75% 527 16 33 50% Prizren 400 6 67 102% 241 5 48 75% 173 4 43 65% Mitrovica 424 2 212 321% 294 2 147 222% 350 4 87 132% Peja 433 5 87 132% 193 5 39 60% 125 5 25 38% Gjakova 222 2 111 169% 150 3 50 76% 94 2 47 71% Gjilan 359 6 60 91% 291 5 58 88% 276 4 69 105% Ferizaj 244 3 81 123% 213 1 213 322% 243 3 61 92% Total 3453 40 86 130% 2270 39 58 88% 1788 38 56 85% SPRK 207 10 21 95% 164 14 12 55% 182 14 13 59% Tabla 9 – Efficiency of prosecutors at the Serious Crime Department over three years 2016, 2017, 2018.

Prosecutors of the BP in Pristina in 2016 had the efficiency norm from 130%, the prosecutors performance of this prosecution in 2018 has fallen to 50% in fulfilling the orientation norms. Respectively, this prosecution with the number of prosecutors that us had during this year should complete 1056 serious crime cases, whereas in reality has only managed to complete 527 cases.

BP in Mitrovica, during 2016 had the efficiency norm of 321%, whereas during 2018 had its efficiency decline to 132&

During 2018, the lowest performance was from the BP in Peja. This prosecution during 2018, with five Prosecutors within the Serious Crime Department has resolved only 125 cases from 330 as was obligated to be resolved pursuant to the orientation norms. The efficiency of this prosecution was only 38%

26

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

The same situation can be seen in SPRK. A prosecutor at the SPRK pursuant to the orientation norms must complete 22 cases within a year. This prosecution in 2016 had a performance of 95% in fulfilling the annual orientation norms, whereas this efficiency has fallen in 2017 to 55%, while in 2018 it was 59%. During 2018, this prosecutions has 14 prosecutors who have resolved 182 cases, from 308 as was obligated to do according to the Administrative Instruction defined by KPC.

V. Treatment of corruption cases by the judicial system a. Court decisions in corruption cases according to the KPC Tracking Mechanism

The table below shows the efficiency of defending indictments filed at the Basic Courts in the Republic of Kosovo from each respective prosecution.

Number Persons for Indictment was Accused was Accused has Rejected whom the Court has dismissed before found guilty been PROSECUTION taken a decision the main trial acquitted OFFICE regarding indictments 1 SPRK 28 3 16 5 4 2 Pristina 239 38 98 51 52 3 Prizren 133 7 73 41 12 4 Peja 49 5 34 10 0 5 Gjilan 16 3 4 9 0 6 Mitrovica 44 8 23 10 3 7 Ferizaj 73 1 47 13 12 8 Gjakova 51 7 21 16 7 TOTAL: 633 72 316 155 90 Table 10 – Manner of resolution of corruption cases during three years for indictments from every prosecution according to the KPC Tracking Mechanism.

SPRK - Kosovo Courts during three years 2016, 2017, 2018 have tried a total of 28 persons based on indictments from the SPRK. Of them, 16 persons have guilty verdicts while 12 have been acquitted from criminal responsibility. A characteristic for this prosecution presents the fact that against three persons, the indictment was dismissed before the main trial.

BP Pristina - BP in Pristina remains the only prosecution that have the largest number of cases that the Kosovo courts have tried or 45.6% of all persons of which the courts have announced verdicts for corruption cases. Courts during the three years 2016, 2017, 2018 have treated indictments against 239 persons filed by this prosecution. Of them, 98 persons have been found guilty, while 141 have been acquitted of criminal responsibility. It is evident that even cases from the BP in Pristina a large number of cases are dismissed by the court before the main trial, respectively against 38 persons.

27

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

BP Prizren - Courts during the three years 2016, 2017, 2018 have treated corruption cases filed by this prosecution against 144 persons. Of them, 73 have guilty verdicts, while 60 persons are acquitted of criminal responsibility.

BP Peja - Courts in the three years 2016, 2017, 2018 treated corruption cases from this prosecution against 49 persons. Of them, 34 persons were given guilty verdict while 15 were acquitted from criminal responsibility.

BP Gjilan - Courts in the three years 2016, 2017, 2018 treated corruption cases from this prosecution against 16 persons. Of them, 4 persons were given guilty verdict while 12 were acquitted from criminal responsibility.

BP Mitrovica - Courts during the three years 2016, 2017, 2018 have treated corruption cases filed by this prosecution against 44 persons. Of them, 23 persons were given guilty verdict while 21 were acquitted from criminal responsibility..

BP Ferizaj - Courts during the three years 2016, 2017, 2018 have treated corruption cases filed by this prosecution against 73 persons. Of them, 47 persons were given guilty verdict while 26 were acquitted from criminal responsibility.

BP Gjakova - Courts during the three years 2016, 2017, 2018 have treated corruption cases filed by this prosecution against 51 persons. Of them, 21 persons were given guilty verdict while 30 acquitted from criminal responsibility.

b. Court decisions for corruption cases according to the KJC Tracking Mechanism

According to the KJC Tracking Mechanism, Kosovo Courts during the three years 2016, 2017, 2018, have accepted at work 620 indictments filed by SP. In relation to 2016 and 2017, the performance of SP in 2018 has had considerable decline. Whereas during 2016 they filed 232 indictments, in 2017 ne number fell to 223, while in 2018 the number fell to 165 indictments filed for corruption. The number of corruption cases in Kosovo Courts has fallen from 407 cases that were at the beginning of 2016 to 263 corruption cases at the end of 2018.

The efficiency of the Kosovo Courts in the treatment of corruption cases has fallen over the years. While courts in 2016 resolved 284 cases, this number in 2017 declined to 254 cases, whereas in 2018 the courts have only resolved 202 corruption cases. For more information please see the graph below.

28

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Treatment of corruption cases by Basic Courts (2016, 2017, 2018)

700 639

600 559 470 500 407 400 336 355 305 284 305 254 263 300 232 223 202 200 165

100

0 Unsolved cases in the Cases received in work Total of cases in work Total of resloved cases Unsolved cases at the beginning end

2016 2017 2018

Graph 5 - Treatment of corruption cases from the Basic Courts during the years 2016, 2017, 2018.

Kosovo Courts during the years 2016, 2017, 2018 rendered decisions against 740 persons suspected of criminal offense of corruption. Of this number of persons judged, courts against 101 persons or 13.6% of them has rendered decisions of effective imprisonment. Against 128 persons or 17.2% of them, courts have given fines. Against 145 persons or 19.5% of them the courts have given conditional sentences. Courts have acquitted from criminal responsibility regarding corruption cases 252 persons or 34% of persons accused (including release, refusal and absolute statutory limitations). The courts against 6 persons have rendered other sentences and against 108 persons have used other manners of resolution.

29 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Manner of corruption cases resolution by Basic Courts (2016, 2017, 2018)

80 70 61 70 58 56 60 52 47 48 44 50 37 37 40 40 32 33 31 22 21 21 30 16 20 8 10 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2016 2017 2018

Graph 6 – Manner of resolution of corruption cases during three years according to the KJC Tracking Mechanism.

c. Efficiency of Courts at the Serious Crime Department KLI analyzed the performance of judges in treating cases in the Serious Crimes Department for the three years 2016, 2017, 2018.19 The reason for this performance review of judges is that these prosecutors are charged with corruption cases. This does not mean that these judges have worked exclusively on corruption cases, because they have been engaged in resolving other types of cases. However, the analysis of statistical data shows that even in the Courts of Kosovo there is a decline in performance in dealing with cases over the years. In 2016, the judges of this department had exceeded the norm for the court determined by the KJC for 137%. In 2017, this efficiency has dropped to 89%, while in 2018, this efficiency has fallen further to 72%..

19 Source: Annual reports of the work of Courts

30 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Courts

2016 in resolved cases of Number judges of Number the by resolved cases of Average judges norm the on based Performance 2017 in resolved cases of Number judges of Number the by resolved cases of Average judges norm the on based Performance 2018 in resolved cases of Number judges of Number the by resolved cases of Average judges norm the on based Performance 2016 2017 2018 Pristina 691 14 49 99% 751 14 54 109% 629 18 35 71% Prizren 234 5 47 95% 168 6 28 57% 134 6 22 44% Mitrovica 601 4 150 303% 140 4 35 71% 298 8 37 75% Peja 391 5 98 198% 183 5 37 75% 139 5 28 57% Gjakova 263 4 66 133% 161 4 49 99% 91 4 23 47% Gjilan 470 6 78 158% 329 6 55 111% 314 5 63 127% Ferizaj 191 4 48 97% 198 5 40 81% 205 4 51 103% Total 2841 42 68 137% 1930 44 44 89% 1810 50 36 72% Table 11 – Efficiency of judges at the Serius Crime Department over three years 2016, 2017, 2018.

Based on the data presented in the table it results that some judges have very good performance, exceeding the norm set by the KJC through the Administrative Instruction, while some judges have much lower performance than the guiding norms. The Administrative Instruction on the Guidelines for the Judges in Serious Crime Department has stipulated the obligation for every judge to complete within a month three complicated cases or seven lighter cases.

Judges in BC Pristina during 2016 had the efficiency norm rate of 99% whereas the performance of the judges from this court in 2018 has fallen to 71% in fulfilling the norms.

Judges in BC Gjilan, during 2016, had the efficiency norm rate of 158%, whereas during 2018, had the efficiency norm rate of 127%.

During 2018, the lowest performance rate was seen by judges in BC Prizren and Gjakova. Judges of the Serious Crime Department in Prizren during 2018 have only fulfilled 44% of the norms, whereas in 2016 they fulfilled 95% of the norms. Efficiency of judges of this Department in BC Gjakova during 2016 was 133% whereas in 2018 it declined to 47%.

31 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

VI. KLI monitoring of judicial proceedings for corruption cases

KLI20 systematically monitors corruption cases in all Basic Courts, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo. The KLI monitoring team consistently and systematically visited all Courts and Presidents of Basic Courts, Prosecutors and Chief Prosecutors of Basic Prosecutions to closely monitor each case related to corruption offenses. The monitoring included the process of identifying cases of corruption at work, scheduling and case allocation, information at what stage of the proceedings these cases are in the courts and their reporting to the public on a daily basis through the website.21 Identifying cases of corruption and securing the hearing schedule have been and remain a challenge for KLI monitoring team.22 Regardless, KLI and KJC have signed a Memorandum of Understanding23that has eased the monitoring teams access in courts, communication, cooperation and coordination. a. Court hearings on corruption cases monitored by KLI during three years

KLI researchers from 1 January 2016 until 31 December 2018 have monitored 3994 court hearings for criminal offenses of corruption. Of them 2860 or 71% were held, while 1134 or 29% were postpones. Refer to the graph below.

20 KLI from November 2013 systematically monitors the prosecutorial and judicial system in the treatment of corruption cases. 21KLI, in cooperation with Public Radio Television, co-produce a special program for the rule of law "Oath for Justice". In addition, the portal "Oath for Justice" has been developed, in which, in addition to the research, analysis and debates that take place on the program, KLI monitoring team daily reports on all corruption cases are also available. These reports are published though a special rubric and is available on: https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/lajme/ 22 BC’s still do not have an efficient and effective system of updating the database on the timetable for holding hearings in general and for corruption cases. Initially, KLI established communication through the Court Presidents and spokespersons of respective courts, that informed the KLI monitoring team about the hearing schedule for corruption cases. However, this practice has not worked in the best way, because the spokespersons have sent incomplete and inaccurate information on the schedule of hearings to the KLI monitors, which has caused problems for their monitoring. This communication has progressed daily, but there are still practical problems associated with the timetable of hearings for corruption cases. In view of these challenges, KLI, using the positive legislation to have access to all the necessary information about these cases, has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the KJC, which facilitates better access, communication, cooperation and coordination in between KLI and KJC monitors, respectively at all levels of the Courts and Presidents.

23 The Memorandum of Understanding between the KJC and the KLI was unanimously approved by all members of the KJC at the meeting held on 6 April 2016, and was signed between the KJC and KLI heads on 7 April 2016 Prishtina, April 7, 2016

32 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Court hearings of corruption monitored by KLI over three years 2016, 2017, 2018

#))$ $+++ #%++ "(&+ #+++ "%++ "+++ **#$ *%++ *+++ %++ + D-4/0-62?!M236/48. O2@?!hearings ,-.0=-42?!hearings

Graph 7 – Number of court hearings for corruption cases monitored by KLI during the last three years.

In 2016, KLI has monitored 383 corruption cases, where 989 persons involved were accused, in 2017 it monitored 357 corruption cases with 1027 persons involved were accused and in 2018 monitored 320 cases of corruption, where 935 persons involved were accused. See table below.24

Number of cases and persons monitored by KLI 2016 2017 2018 Cases Persons Cases Persons Cases Persons 383 989 357 1027 320 935 Table 12 – Number of corruption cases and persons involved in these cases monitored by KLI in three years 2016, 2017 and 2018.

24Note: In this case, monitored cases can not be collected for three years, because a large number of cases monitored in these three years are the same cases that have begun to be processed before and during this monitoring period. Some of them have been completed, some of them have continued and are still being prosecuted in the courts

##! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

The court with the most corruption cases remains to be the Basic Court in Pristina, in which KLI has monitored 1983 hearings on corruption cases over the last three years. Of them 1316 hearings or 66% of them were held while 667 or 44% were postponed. For more information refer to the table below, which shows all court hearings monitored at all Basic Courts in the Republic of Kosovo.

Corruption case hearings monitored by KLI over the last three years Monitoring 2016 Monitoring 2017 Monitoring 2018

Court Held Held Held Hearings Hearings Hearings Postponed Postponed Postponed Pristina 632 430 202 698 447 251 653 439 214 Prizren 233 185 48 166 127 39 87 74 13 Peja 117 99 18 86 59 27 61 38 23 Gjilan 186 148 38 172 113 59 192 144 48 Mitrovica 89 71 18 63 44 19 50 32 18 Ferizaj 145 118 27 50 37 13 81 62 19 Gjakova 103 88 15 62 47 15 68 58 10 Total 1505 1139 366 1297 874 423 1192 847 345 Table 13 – Number of corruption cases and persons involved in these cases monitored by KLI for each court during 2016, 2017 and 2018.

b. Punishment policy in corruption cases

Based on corruption cases monitored by KLI, it results that Basic Courts of the Republic of Kosovo, from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018, have announced 518 judgements, involving 996 individuals.

The first-instance judgements against these 996 individuals testify that judges mainly apply mild punitive policy to perpetrators of corruption offences.

Therefore, in this regard, KLI estimates that punishment policy in corruption cases continues to be mild and inadequate to achieve the purpose of punishment.

Below you can find the table, which reflects the details of judgments announced by judges in these 518 judgements regarding corruption cases. (See table.)

34 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Judgements on corruption cases by the Basic Courts for three years Dismissal Punishment of Suspended Punishment Judgement Rejection of Year imprisonment punishment of a fine of Judgement Indictment Acquittal - statutory limitation Amount Individuals Months Individuals Months Individuals in Euro Individuals Individuals Individuals 2016 6325 878 6126 710 22 47,450 115 79 26 2017 5627 773 7228 757 43 210,300 114 3129 2730 2018 5731 893 4532 382 33 131,680 95 41 16 Total 176 2544 178 1849 98 389,430.00 324 151 69 Table 14 – Cases of judgements monitored by KLI.

KLI findings from the monitoring process of corruption cases show that the largest number of individuals charged with corruptiove offences have been acquitted, while les then the half of the defentends have been sentenced to effective imprisonment, suspended punishments or by fine. (See the graph)

25 Clarification: Out of 63 individuals punished to effective imprisonment, 17 of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 15,600 Euro has been imposed. 26 Clarification: Out of 61 individuals punished of suspended imprisonment, 10 of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 6,550 Euro has been imposed 27Clarification: Out of 56 individuals punished to effective imprisonment, 24 of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 80,400 Euro has been imposed. 28 Clarification: Out of 72 individuals punished of suspended imprisonment, 26 of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 54,565 Euro has been imposed. 29 Clarification: One of 31 individuals against whom a rejection judgement has been announced, is the same one for whom a judgement of acquittal has been announced on the second case against him. 30 Clarification: One of 27 individuals against whom a judgement of acquittal has been announced, is the same one for whom a judgement of conviction has been announced, suspended imprisonment, on the second case against him. 31 Clarification: Out of 57 individuals punished to effective imprisonment, 28 of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 77,300 Euro has been imposed. 32 Clarification: Out of 45 individuals punished of suspended imprisonment, 8 of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 11,200 Euro has been imposed

35 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Individuals convicted of curruption in the last three years (2016, 2017, 2018)

*'& :-41/:0.!NP! 2;;2:0/12! /Q=6/.-4Q240 *'( :-41/:0.!NP! %$$ 3:R

)( :-41/:0.!NP!;/42

H;;2:0/12!/Q=6/.-4Q240 C<.=24?2?S=<4/.MQ240. T/42 E:R

Graph 8 – Individuals convicted of corruption in the last three years.

Of 996 accused individuals, it results that courts have punished 176 individuals or 17.7% of the accused with a punishment of effective imprisonment. Also, out of these 996 accused individuals, judges against 178 individuals or 17.9% of the accused have imposed suspended punishments, against 98 individuals or 9.8% of the accused have imposed punishments of a fine, while 544 individuals or 54.6% of the accused were acquitted.

Announced judgements for corruption during 2016:

KLI findings from the monitoring process of corruption cases show that in cases against 366 individuals to whom a first-instance judgement has been rendered, 63 individuals have been sentenced to imprisonment, in a total of eight hundred and seventy-eight (878) months or seventy three (73) years and two (2) months for all convicted individuals.

Out of the 63 convicts by effective imprisonment, two individuals have been punished by effective imprisonment of 2 months each, two individuals have been punished by effective imprisonment of 4 months each, five individuals33 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 5 months each, ten individuals 34 have been punished by effective

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 33 Clarification: One of five individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 5 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 200 Euro has been imposed. 34 Clarification: One of ten individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 6 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 400 Euro has been imposed.

#&! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 imprisonment of 6 months each, four individuals 35 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 7 months each, two individuals 36 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 8 months each, two individuals have been punished by effective imprisonment of 10 months each, fifteen individuals 37 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 12 months each, one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 14 months, one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 16 months, three individuals have been punished by effective imprisonment of 20 months each, two individuals38 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 24 months each, one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 27 months, four individuals have been punished by effective imprisonment of 30 months each, three individuals have been punished by effective imprisonment of 36 months each one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 84 months.

Judges against 61 individuals have imposed suspended punishments of 710 months. Out of them, against one individual39 was imposed suspended sentence of a term of 1 months each, against three individuals40 were imposed suspended sentences of a term of 2 months each, against three individuals41 were imposed suspended sentences of 3 months each, against one individual was imposed a suspended sentence of 4 months, against thirteen individuals42 were imposed suspended sentences of 6 months each, against five individuals43 were imposed suspended sentences of 8 months each, against two individuals were imposed suspended sentences of 10 months each, against seventeen individuals44 were imposed suspended sentences of 12 months each, against five individuals were imposed suspended sentences of 18 months each, against three individuals were imposed suspended sentences of 22 months each, and against eight individuals45 were imposed suspended sentences of 24 months each.

35 Clarification: Out of four individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 7 months, three of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 1,600 Euro has been imposed, where two of them have been fined to 600 Euro each, whereas the other has been fined to 400 Euro. 36 Clarification: One of two individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 8 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 600 Euro has been imposed. 37 Clarification: Out of fifteen individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 12 months, nine of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 9,700 Euro has been imposed, where one of them has been fined to 200 Euro, six of them have been fined to 1,000 Euro each, one of them has been fined to 1,500 Euro, whereas the other has been fined to 2,000 Euro. 38 Clarification: One of two individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 24 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 3,000 Euro has been imposed. 39 Clarification: The individual punished of suspended imprisonment of 1 month, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 500 Euro has been imposed. 40 Clarification: Out of three individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 2 months, one of them is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 150 Euro has been imposed. 41 Clarification: Out of three individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 3 months, one of them is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 300 Euro has been imposed. 42 Clarification: Out of thirteen individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 6 months, one of them is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 500 Euro has been imposed. 43 Clarification: Out of five individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 8 months, one of them is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 2,000 Euro has been imposed. 44 Clarification: Out of seventeen individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 12 months, three of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 1,100 Euro has been imposed, where two of them have been fined to 200 Euro each, whereas the other has been fined to 700 Euro. 45 Clarification: Out of eight individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 24 months, two of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 1,000 Euro has been imposed.

37

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

The judges against 22 individuals have imposed punishments of a fine in a total of 47,450 Euro. Of them, one individual was fined in the amount of 150 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 200 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 350 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 800 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 1,000 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 1,500 Euro three individuals were fined in the amount of 2,000 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 2,400 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 2,500 Euro each, four individuals were fined in the amount of 3,000 Euro each, three individuals were fined in the amount of 3,600 Euro each and one individual was fined in the amount of 5,000 Euro.

Judges against 115 individuals have announced judgement of acquittal, while against 79 individuals have announced rejection judgement. Whereas against 26 individuals the indictment was dismissed.

Of 366 accused individuals, it results that courts have punished 63 individuals or 17.2% of the accused with a punishment of effective imprisonment. Also, out of these 366 accused individuals, judges against 61 individuals or 16.7% of the accused have imposed suspended punishments, against 33 individuals or 6% of the accused have imposed punishments of a fine, while 220 individuals or 60.1% of the accused were acquitted.

Announced judgements for corruption during 2017:

Out of 343 persons charged with corruptive offenses, during 2017, courts persons have announced judgement of acquittal against 172 individuals, or in 50% of the cases the courts have not found that the defendants have committed corruption offenses, or have announed rejection judgement due to statutory limitation.

KLI findings from the monitoring process of corruption cases show that in cases against 343 individuals to whom a first-instance judgement has been rendered, 56 individuals have been sentenced to imprisonment, in a total of seven-hundred and seventy-three (773) months or sixty-four (74) years and five (5) months for all convicted individuals.

Out of the 56 convicts by effective imprisonment, two individuals have been punished by effective imprisonment of 3 months each, one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 4 months, three individuals46 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 5 months each, seventeen individuals47 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 6 months each, four individuals48 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 7 months

46 Clarification: Out of three individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 5 months, two of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 800 Euro has been imposed. 47 Clarification: Out of seventeen individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 6 months, three of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 2,700 Euro has been imposed. 48 Clarification: Out of four individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 7 months, three of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 9,100 Euro has been imposed.

38

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 each, nine individuals49 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 8 months each, one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 10 months, eight individuals 50 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 12 months each, one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 18 months, one individual51 has been punished by effective imprisonment of 24 months, one individual 52 has been punished by effective imprisonment of 32 months, two individuals 53 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 36 months each, one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 38 months, three individuals54 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 48 months each, one individual55 has been punished by effective imprisonment of 54 months and one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 58 months.

Judges against 72 individuals have imposed suspended punishments of 757 months. Out of them, against one individual56 was imposed suspended sentence of a term of 2 months, against four individuals were imposed suspended sentences of a term of 3 months each, against four individuals were imposed suspended sentences of 5 months each, against twenty- four individuals57 were imposed suspended sentences of a term of 6 months each, against two individuals were imposed suspended sentences of 7 months each, against four individuals58 were imposed suspended sentences of a term of 8 months each, against one individual was imposed a suspended sentence of 10 months, against one individual was imposed a suspended sentence of 11 months, against sixteen individuals59 were imposed suspended sentences of 12 months each, against one individual was imposed a suspended sentence of 14 months, against five individuals60 were imposed suspended sentences of 18 months each, against nine individuals61 were imposed suspended sentences of 24 months each.

49 Clarification: Out of nine individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 8 months, five of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 13,500 Euro has been imposed. 50 Clarification: Out of eight individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 12 months, four of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 10,800 Euro has been imposed. 51 Clarification: The individual punished of effective imprisonment of 24 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 25,000 Euro has been imposed. 52 Clarification: The individual punished of effective imprisonment of 32 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 10,000 Euro has been imposed. 53 Clarification: Out of two individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 36 months, one of them is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 1,000 Euro has been imposed. 54 Clarification: Three individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 48 months, are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 7,000 Euro has been imposed. 55 Clarification: The individual punished of effective imprisonment of 54 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 500 Euro has been imposed. 56 Clarification: The individual punished of suspended imprisonment of 2 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 150 Euro has been imposed. 57 Clarification: Out of 24 individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 6 months, ten of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 16,215 Euro has been imposed. 58 Clarification: Out of 4 individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 8 months, two of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 800 Euro has been imposed 59 Clarification: Out of 16 individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 12 months, ten of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 28,400 Euro has been imposed 60 Clarification: One of five individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 18 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 1,000 Euro has been imposed. 61 Clarification: Out of 9 individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 24 months, two of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 8,000 Euro has been imposed

39 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

The judges against 43 individuals have imposed punishments of a fine in a total of 210,300 Euro. Of them, one individual was fined in the amount of 100 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 200 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 300 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 400 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 700 Euro, four individuals were fined in the amount of 1,000 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 1,100 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 1,200 Euro each, three individuals were fined in the amount of 1,500 Euro each, seven individuals were fined in the amount of 2,000 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 2,400 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 2,500 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 3,000 Euro, four individuals were fined in the amount of 3,600 Euro each, two individuals were fined in the amount of 4,000 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 4,500 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 5,000 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 10,000 Euro each, six individuals were fined in the amount of 20,000 Euro each.

Judges against 114 individuals have announced judgement of acquittal, while against 31 individuals have announced rejection judgement. Whereas against 27 individuals the indictment was dismissed.

Of 343 accused individuals, it results that courts have punished 56 individuals or 16.3% of the accused with a punishment of effective imprisonment. Also, out of these 343 accused individuals, judges against 72 individuals or 21% of the accused have imposed suspended punishments, against 43 individuals or 12.5% of the accused have imposed punishments of a fine, while 172 individuals or 50.2% of the accused were acquitted.

Announced judgements for corruption during 2018:

KLI findings from the monitoring process of corruption cases show that in cases against 287 individuals to whom a first-instance judgement has been rendered, 57 individuals have been sentenced to imprisonment, in a total of eight-hundred and ninety-three (893) months or seventy-four (74) years and five (5) months for all convicted individuals.

Out of the 57 convicts by effective imprisonment, one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 5 months, seventeen individuals62 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 6 months each, two individuals63 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 8 months each, six individuals64 have been punished by effective

62 Clarification: Out of 17 individuals convicted to a punishment of effective imprisonment of 6 months each, 7 of them are the same who have received a punishment of a fine with a total of 5,500 Euro, where 5 of them have been sentenced with 500 Euro more, 1 of them is sentenced with 1000 Euro more, whereas 1 of them is sentenced to 2000 Euro more. 63 Clarification: One of two individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 8 months, is the same against whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 1000 Euro has been imposed. 64 Clarification: Ten individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 10 months, are the same who have been punished to a fine of 1000 Euro each.

40 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 imprisonment of 10 months each, six individuals65 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 12 months each, six individuals66 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 15 months each, two individuals have been punished by effective imprisonment of 18 months each, seven individuals67 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 24 months each, one individual 68 has been punished by effective imprisonment of 25 months, three individuals have been punished by effective imprisonment of 30 months each, one individual 69 has been punished by effective imprisonment of 31 months, two individuals 70 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 36 months each, two individuals71 have been punished by effective imprisonment of 42 months each and one individual has been punished by effective imprisonment of 54 months.

Judges against 45 individuals have imposed suspended punishments of three hundred and eighty-two (382) months. Out of them, against three individuals72 were imposed suspended sentence of a term of 3 months each, against four individuals were imposed suspended sentences of a term of 5 months each, against twenty individuals73 were imposed suspended sentences of 6 months each, against one individual was imposed a suspended sentence of 7 months, against two individuals were imposed suspended sentences of 8 months each, against one individual was imposed a suspended sentence of 10 months, against eleven individuals74 were imposed suspended sentences of 12 months each, against one individual75 was imposed a suspended sentence of 20 months, and against two individuals76 were imposed suspended sentences of 24 months each.

65 Clarification: Out of 6 individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 12 months each, 3 of them are the same who have been fined in the total amount of 3500 Euro, where two of them have been punished to a fine of 1000 Euro each, whereas the other has been fined to 1500 Euro. 66 Clarification: Six individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 15 months, are the same who have been punished to a fine in the amount of 9300 Euro, where one of them has been punished to an extra 300 Euro fine, whereas the other to an extra 1500 Euro fine. 67 Clarification: One of seven individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 8 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 25,000 Euro has been imposed. 68 Clarification: The individual punished of effective imprisonment of 18 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 2500 Euro has been imposed. 69 Clarification: The individual punished of effective imprisonment of 31 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 3000 Euro has been imposed. 70 Clarification:One of two individuals punished to effective imprisonment of 36 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 7000 Euro has been imposed. 71 Clarification: One of the two individuals punished of effective imprisonment of 42 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 16,000 Euro has been imposed.. 72 Clarification: One of three individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 3 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 200 Euro has been imposed. 73 Clarification: Out of 20 individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 6 months, two of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 5,500 Euro has been imposed, where one of them has been fined to 4000 Euro, whereas the other has been fined to 1500 Euro. 74 Clarification: Out of 11 individuals punished of suspended imprisonment of 12 months, three of them are the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the total amount of 4,000 Euro has been imposed, where one of them has been fined to 2000 Euro, one of them has been fined to 1500 Euro, whereas the other has been fined to 500 Euro. 75 Clarification: The individual punished of suspended imprisonment of 20 months, is the same to whom a punishment of a fine in the amount of 1000 Euro has been imposed. 76 Clarification: One of the two individuals punished to suspended imprisonment of 24 months, is the same regarding whom a punishment of fine in the amount of 500 Euro has been imposed.

41 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

The judges against 33 individuals have imposed punishments of a fine in a total of 131,680 Euro. Of them, one individual was fined in the amount of 150 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 200 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 300 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 350 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 500 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 800 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 1000 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 1500 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 1700 Euro each, two individuals were fined in the amount of 2000 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 2200 Euro, two individuals were fined in the amount of 2500 Euro each, one individual was fined in the amount of 2800 Euro, four individuals were fined in the amount of 3000 Euro each, one person was fined in the amount of 3080 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount 4,000 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount 5,000 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount 6,800 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount 7,000 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount 8,600 Euro, one individual was fined in the amount of 10,000 Euro, three individuals were fined in the amount of 12,000 Euro each and one individual was fined in the amount of 13,000 Euro.

Judges against 95 individuals have announced judgement of acquittal, against 41 individuals have announced rejection judgement, whereas against 16 individuals the indictment was dismissed.

Of 287 accused individuals, it results that courts have punished 57 individuals or 19.8% of the accused with a punishment of effective imprisonment. Also, out of these 287 accused individuals, judges against 45 individuals or 15.7% of the accused have imposed suspended punishments. Against 33 individuals or 11.5% of the accused have imposed punishments of a fine, while 152 individuals or 53% of the accused were acquitted.

42

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

c. Profile of individuals convicted for corruption by courts over three years (2016, 2017,2018)

In these cases of corruption in which the judgement was announced, all profiles of the accused individuals were included. Out of these, 442 individuals belong to low profile, 516 medium profile and 38 individuals belong to high profile.

Low Medium High profile 442 profile 516 profile 38 individuals individuals individuals

Graph 9 - Profile of accused individuals for corruption criminal offences, against whom a judgement was announced by a Basic Court, during the reporting period, monitored by KLI (2016,2017,2018)

High profile accused individuals charged with corruptive criminal offences, regarding whom a judgement was announced during the reporting

period (2016, 2017, 2018) Number of individuals Judgement of Conviction Judgement of Acquittal Rejection Judgement Dismissal of Indictment Executive Chief of PTK 3 0 1 0 2 Head of the PRB 2 1 0 177 0 Court President 3 0 2 0 178 Chief Prosecutor 1 0 0 0 1 Rector 1 0 0 0 1 Minister 4 1 1 0 2 Permanent Secretary of a Ministry 1 0 1 0 0 Member of the Parliament 1 1 0 0 0 Mayor 22 6 8 5 3 Total of positions 38 9 13 6 10 Table 15 – High profile accused individuals charged with corruptive criminal offences, regarding whom a judgement was announced by a Basic Court during the reporting period (2016, 2017, 2018))

d. Punishment policy in high profile cases of corruption in past three years

From January 1, 2016 until December 31, 2018, KLI has analyzed all monitored cases of indictments filed regarding high-profile corruption cases. In this three year period, it results that courts have handled 59 indictments against 68 high-profile individuals, filed earlier or

77 In the second case, during the same year (2017), a judgement of acquittal was announced against the Head of the PRB. 78 In the second case, during the same year (2017), a judgement of conviction was announced against the Court President accused as the Rector of the University.

$#! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

during this period. Among them, 13 senior officials have been charged more than once.79 It is worth mentioning that 7 indictments are filed against the former Mayor of Kllokot, Sasha Mirkoviq.

Table 16 – High-profile individuals who have more than one indictment.

KLI has found that distinctive of high-profile accused is that among 68 officials, only 13 of them have been charged and are facing court proceedings while they have been still in power or while holding high-leading positions, while 55 of them have been charged only after they have finished their mandate or after they became “formers”.

Out of them, 61 high profile officials were charged for the criminal offence of “abusing official position or authority” and other offences related to it, while 4 of them are charged with the criminal offence “fraud in office”, two were charged with “conflict of interest” and one is charged with “disclosing official secrets”.

79 Note: KLI based on the monitoring process has found that there are some high-profile officials who have been charged several times. The Prosecution has filed two indictments against the Mayor of Malisheva, Ragip Begaj; The Prosecution has filed two indictments against the former mayor of Partesh, Dragan Nikoliq; The Prosecution has filed two indictments against the mayor of Novo Brdo, Svetisllav Ivanoviq; The Prosecution has filed two indictments against the former mayor of Drenas, Nexhat Demaku; The Prosecution has filed two indictments against the former Mayor of Kllokot, Sreqko Spasiq; the Prosecution has filed two indictments against the former Mayor of Gjilan, Qemajl Mustafa, the Prosecution has filed two indictments against the former Mayor of Gjakova, currently Minister of Infrastructure, Pal Lekaj, the Prosecution has filed two indictments against the former Mayor of Lipjan, Shukri Buja; The Prosecution has filed seven indictments against the former Mayor of Kllokot, Sasha Mirkoviq; The Prosecution has filed two indictments against former Minister of Culture, Astrit Haraqija; The Prosecution has filed two indictments against former President of the Constitutional Court, former Rector of UP Enver Hasani; The Prosecution has filed two indictments against the former General Secretary of the Ministry of Health, Ilir Tolaj, the Prosecution has filed four indictments against the former President of the Procurement Review Body, Hysni Hoxha and the Prosecution has filed two indictments against the former President of the Municipal Court in Pristina, now the deceased Nuhi Uka.

$$! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

First instance decisions/Basic Courts in the Republic of Kosovo

In all cases of indictments filed against 68 high-profile officials, Basic Courts as the first instance have dismissed the indictments for 9 senior officials, for 16 officials have announced judgements of acquittal, for 5 officials have announced rejection judgments80, whereas for 11 high profile officials the courts have imposed punishments. Meanwhile for 27 high-profile officials court proceedings in the first instance are still ongoing.

Table 17 –Decision of the first instance court regarding the high-profile accused of corruption.

Meanwhile, out of the imposed punishments, 881 senior officials were punished with suspended imprisonment, while one official was fined. Only two sentences have been imposed with effective imprisonment, both three years of effective imprisonment, one against the former President of the PRB, Hysni Hoxha and the other against the former Mayor of Lipjan, Shukri Buja.

The Court of Appeals in Pristina

In all these cases of judgments announced by Basic Courts as first instance, in the cases processed with appeals to the Court of Appeals in Kosovo as second instance, there are

80 Note: Of the 68 high-profile officials, it results that against two officials, the Basic Courts did not render a judgement, since in the initial stage of the reviewing process of complaints regarding the confirmation or dismissal of the indictment the Court of Appeals in Kosovo, has decided to dismiss these two indictments. These are the cases of former President of the Constitutional Court, Enver Hasani and the Mayor of Mitrovica, Agim Bahtiri. 81 Note: The Basic Courts have imposed seven suspended punishments, including: Six months of suspended imprisonment for the former mayor of Partesh, Dragan Nikoliq; 12 months of suspended imprisonment for the former Mayor of Dragash, Salim Jenuzi, the case against him was returned for retrial in which the court acquitted him by rendering a rejection judgement in October 2018; 12 months of suspended imprisonment for the former Mayor of Prizren, Ramadan Muja,10 months of suspended imprisonment for the former Mayor of Kllokot Municipality, Sreqko Spasiq; 12 months of suspended imprisonment for former Minister of Culture, Astrit Haraqija; 12 months of suspended imprisonment for former Minister of Culture, Valton Beqiri; 24 months of suspended imprisonment against the Member of the Parliament, Etem Arifi; 12 months of suspended imprisonment for former Rector of UP, Enver Hasani and 4.500 Euros fine for former mayor of Novo Brdo, Svetisllav Ivanoviq.

$%! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

altogether 31 cases of high-profile officials, for which this court has decided, while the court proceedings are still continuing against 8 high-profile officials.82

Table 18 –Decisions of the second instance court regarding the high-profile accused of corruption.

Out of 31 cases for which the Court of Appeals in Pristina has decided, it results that judges in eight (8) cases have affirmed the dismissal of indictments for which have decided the Basic Courts in the first instance.

Judges of the Court of Appeals have announced four (4) rejection judgments. Of these, they have affirmed three (3) rejection judgements of the Basic Courts, while a judgement of conviction imposing two years of suspended imprisonment against the former Minister of Culture Astrit Haraqija has been converted into a rejection judgement.

Judges of the Court of Appeals decided to return for retrial the case against former Mayor of Dragash Salim Jenuzi, who was punished to 10 months of suspended imprisonment, that in the meantime, has been completed again in the first instance but now with rejection judgment, acquitting the accused because of reaching the statutory limitation period, for what the Prosecution withdrew the prosecution.

Judges of the Court of Appeals have announced 17 judgements of acquittal, out of which thirteen (13) judgements of acquittal of the Basic Courts have been affirmed, while four (4) first instance judgements of conviction have been amended, converting them into judgements of acquittal.

82 Note: KLI during the monitoring process found that in these 8 cases, the Basic Courts have announced the judgements, whereas the cases upon appeal are ongoing at the Court of Appeals in Kosovo. The cases that are still pending in the Court of Appeals are: 1. Shukri Buja former Mayor of Lipjan (punished by the first instance with three years of effective imprisonment); 2. Sasha Mirkoviq former Mayor of Kllokot (first case acquitted by the first instance instance); 3. Fatmir Limaj former Minister (acquitted byt first instance); 4. Ilir Tolaj, former General Secretary of MH (acquitted by the first instance); 5. Ramadan Muja former Mayor (punished to one year of suspended imprisonment by the first instance); 6. Agron Mustafa, former Chief of PTK (indictment against him was dismissed by the first instance); 7. Ejup Qerimi, former Chief of PTK (indictment against him was dismissed by the first instance) and 8. Etem Arifi, Member of the Parliament (punished to two years of suspended imprisonment by the first instance).

$&! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

In this regard, the Court of Appeals has released:

• the former Minister of Culture Valton Beqiri, who was convicted by the first instance with 1-year of suspended imprisonment;

• the former Mayor of Partesh Dragan Nikoliq, who was convicted by first instance with six (6) months of suspended imprisonment;

• the former Rector of University of Pristina Enver Hasani, who was convicted from the first instance with 12 months of suspended imprisonment;

• the former President of the PRB Hysni Hoxha, who was convicted by the first instance with three (3) years of effective imprisonment.

The only punishment affirmed by the Court of Appeals is the 10-month suspended punishment imposed against Sreqko Spasiq, former Mayor of Kllokot.

47 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 e. Duration of court proceedings in corruption cases

Failures to respect legal deadlines in handling corruption cases appear at all levels of justice system, including delays in police, prosecution offices and courts.83 Delays in solving cases have a direct effect in violating the rights of citizens of the Republic of Kosovo,84 which are guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo.85

Through monitoring of the handling of corruption cases in prosecution offices and courts, including all stages of criminal proceeding, KLI presents the real state on how long it takes the institutions responsible for handling a case of corruption, from the submission of the criminal report until the announcement of the verdict, as well as the delays and violations identified during the treatment of these cases.

In three years IKD has monitored around 4,000 corruption hearings, each involving about 350 cases per year with about 1000 people. KID has analyzed the length of criminal proceedings in these monitored cases and has identified violations of legal deadlines at all stages of criminal proceedings. KLI has set several indicators to measure the time spent on handling the case at each stage of criminal proceedings, including:

The time period from the submission of the criminal report until the initiation of investigations 86 2) the time period from the initial of investigations until the completion of investigations; 3) the time period from the initiation of investigations until filing the indictment 87; 4) the time period from the completion of investigations until filing the indictment; 5) the time period from the submission of the criminal report until filing the indictment; 6) the time period from filing the indictment until the scheduling of the initial

83 Note: All systematic monitoring reports of KLI regarding the handling of corruption cases in the judicial and prosecutorial system have identified violations of prosecutors and judges in respecting legal deadlines set forth in the Criminal Procedure Code. See the periodical reports on the Kosovo Law Institute website at the following link: https://kli-ks.org/en/category/publikime-en/ 84All reports of the Ombudsperson in the Republic of Kosovo highlight the continued violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens from the justice system in the country. See the Ombudsperson's annual reports. (See link http://www.ombudspersonkosovo.org). 85Article 31 “Right to fair and impartial trial”. Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. June 15, 2008. 86 Article 82, “Dismissal of Police Criminal Report”. 1. The state prosecutor shall issue a decision dismissing a criminal report received from the police or another source within thirty (30) days if it is evident from the report that: 1.1. there is no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed; 1.2. the period of statutory limitation for criminal prosecution has expired; 1.3. the criminal offence is covered by an amnesty or pardon; 1.4. the suspect is protected by immunity and a waiver is not possible or not granted by the appropriate authority; or 1.5. there are other circumstances that preclude prosecution.. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo. Assembly of Republic of Kosovo. December 13, 2012. 87 Article 159, “Time Limits of Investigation”, 1. If an investigation is initiated, the investigation shall be completed within two (2) years. If an indictment is not filed, or a suspension is not entered under Article 157 of this Code, after two (2) years of the initiation of the investigation, the investigation shall automatically be terminated. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo. Assembly of Republic of Kosovo. December 13, 2012.

48 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 hearing 88; 7) the time period from the initial hearing until the appointment of the second hearing 89; 8) the time period from the second hearing until the appointment of the main trail; 9) the number of hearings that were held and 10) the time period from the main trail until the announcement of the verdict of the first instance 90.

Based on these indicators, KLI has measured corruption cases monitored during past three years (2016, 2017, 2018). KLI findings show that prosecutors and judges have constantly violated the legal deadlines set by the Criminal Procedure Code. In the table below, KLI has presented some of these indicators of certain criminal proceedings stages and the average of the time spent for each of these stage as a result of practical monitoring and research, as well as legal analysis.91

88 Article 242, “Procedure for Filing the Indictment”; Paragraphs 4 and 5; 4. 4. The single trial judge or presiding trial judge shall immediately schedule an initial hearing to be held within thirty (30) days of the indictment being filed. 5. If the defendant is being held in detention on remand, the initial hearing shall be held at the first opportunity, not to exceed fifteen (15) days from the indictment being filed. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo. Assembly of Republic of Kosovo. December 13, 2012. 89 Article 245, “The Initial Hearing”, paragraph 5. During the initial hearing, the single trial judge or presiding trial judge shall schedule a second hearing no less than thirty (30) days after the initial hearing, and no more than forty (40) days after the initial hearing. In the alternative, the single trial judge or presiding trial judge may only require the filing of motions by a date set no more than thirty (30) days after the initial hearing. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo. Assembly of Republic of Kosovo. December 13, 2012. 90 Chapter XIX, MAIN TRIAL, Article 285 Scheduling of Main Trial, paragraph 2) 2. The single trial judge or presiding trial judge shall schedule the main trial to commence within one (1) month from the second hearing or the last order issued under Article 254 paragraph 5 of the present Code. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo. Assembly of Republic of Kosovo. December 13, 2012. Article 314, “Time to Complete Main Trial”; 1. Unless the single trial judge or trial panel adjourns the main trial under Article 310 of the present Code, the main trial shall be completed within the following time limits: 1.1. if the main trial is before a single trial judge, the main trial shall be completed within ninety (90) days, unless the single trial judge issues a reasoned decision to extend the time for the main trial for one of the reasons in paragraph 2 of the present Article. 197 1.2. if the main trial is before a trial panel, the main trial shall be completed within one hundred and twenty (120) days, unless the trial panel issues a reasoned decision to extend the time for the main trial for one of the reasons in paragraph 2 of the present Article. 2. The main trial may be extended by a reasoned decision under paragraph 1 of the present Article if there exist circumstances which require more time, including but not limited to: 2.1. there are an unusually large number of witnesses; 2.2. the testimony of one or more witnesses is unusually lengthy; 2.3. the number of exhibits is unusually big; or 2.4. the security of the trial requires the extension. 3. The main trial may be extended for thirty (30) days for each decision under paragraph 1 of the present Article. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo. Assembly of Republic of Kosovo. December 13, 2012. 91 Note: The measures for each indicator in each stage differ in terms of the number of cases. KLI has measured and analyzed only those cases for which monitors have managed to provide the completed data about the each stage of the criminal procedure set in indicators.

49 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

The average of criminal proceedings duration in corruption cases monitored by KLI Some of the stages of criminal proceedings 2016 2017 2018 Average Submission of the criminal report– Initiation of investigations 288 254 227 256 days Submission of the criminal report - Filing of indictment 407 395 449 417 days Filing of indictment – Initial hearing 319 262 273 286 days Filing of indictment - Announcement of judgement 691 681 778 716 days Submission of the criminal report – Announcement of judgement 1072 993 1098 1054 days Table 19 - The average of criminal proceedings duration in corruption cases monitored by KLI during three years 2016, 2017, 2018.

Below is presented also the graph that shows the average of the time spent handling corruption cases at each stage of the criminal proceedings.

The average of criminal proceedings duration in corruption cases over three years 2016, 2017, 2018.

*+%$ ?3P

*"++ '*& ?3P *+++ $*' ?3P (++ "%& ?3P "(& ?3P &++ $++ "++ + C

Graph 10 - The average of criminal proceedings duration in corruption cases monitored by KLI during three years 2016, 2017, 2018.

As can be seen from the table above, at each of the stages of criminal proceedings, prosecutors and judges have violated the legal deadlines, meanings thus they have also violated the rights of the defendants in criminal proceedings. The average of court proceedings duration, according to KLI analysis, results to be roughly the same in these three years 2016, 2017 and 2018. The handling of a corruption case from the submission of the criminal report until the announcement of the judgement lasted about three years or 1054 days. From the submission of the criminal report until the initiation of investigations, the average of duration is 256 days. From the submission of the criminal report until the filing of indictment, the average of duration is 417 days. From the filing of indictment until the initial hearing, the average of duration is 286 days. From the filing of indictment until the announcement of the judgement, the average of duration 716 days. The handling of corruption cases, with this average of legal deadlines, proves that prosecutors and judges constantly violate the law and do not respect prosecutorial and judicial system policies to address corruption cases with priority. Consequently, defendants in criminal proceedings of corruption cases are constantly subject to violations of rights to resolve their cases in a reasonable time.

%+! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

VII. Legal violations of prosecutors and judges in handling corruption cases

Through adopted policies, KPC and KJC through obliges prosecution offices and courts to treat corruption cases with top priority. These policies are implemented in corruption cases of low profile, but are not applied in other cases when high profile politicians or powerful people in different spheres of interest are involved.

As a result of systematic monitoring of organized crime and corruption cases, KLI has identified certain cases in which prosecution offices and courts violate the legal deadlines defined by the Criminal Procedure Code as well as the KPC and KJC policies and strategies regarding the handling of these cases with priority.

Without any basis and single justification, through certain actions or even non-actions, prosecution offices and courts influence for corruption cases to fail in certain stages of criminal proceedings, either through the drafting of non-professional indictments, representation and non-professional protection of indictments, postponement of court hearings without any reason, where in many cases the judges remain indifferent and do not use the measures provided by the Criminal Procedure Code to ensure the presence of the defendant, witness or other individuals at court hearings.

KLI findings from monitoring these court hearings show that nearly 50% of court hearings postponed in corruption cases occur due to the absence of the prosecutor or judge.

In contemporary states, which are based on the values of guaranteeing and promoting human rights, the criminal procedure codes are a guarantee against the arbitrary enforcement of criminal laws. They are designed to provide the right of suspected individuals and defendants in criminal cases for fair, impartial, independent and reasonable timely trial at all stages of the criminal proceedings, starting from the initial contact with the police and continuing during the stage of arrest, investigation, punishment and remedy. Ignoring of procedures and handling of cases within a reasonable time may result with violation of the rights of a fair trial of the defendants, protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Below, KLI will briefly elaborate four high-profile cases, in which either the prosecution office or the court, or both of them in cooperation violate the legal deadlines set by the Criminal Procedure Code, violation of court proceedings, poor administration by judges of court proceedings, etc.

51 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

One of the well-known high-profile cases, in which KLI estimates that there was negligence, unprofessionalism and violation of all legal deadlines for handling a court case is the case of Ukë Rugova and others. The decision to initiate investigations on this case was issued on November 18, 2013. From that time, until December 31, 2018 have passed 1868 days and the case is still in the initial stage of the criminal proceeding. The legal deadline set by the Criminal Procedure Code – Article 242, point 4 of CPCK, where the single trial judge or presiding trial judge shall immediately schedule an initial hearing to be held within thirty (30) days of the indictment being filed, is violated for more than 500 days by the trial panel.

Change of trial panel – Vitor Pardal was the first presiding judge, then Vladimir Mikula92, and finally judge Petko Petkov, while now the case has passed to the locals93 where the presiding judge is Naime Krasniqi-Jashanica.

Change of prosecutors: The first prosecutor of the case was Andrew Hughes, then Allen Cansick, and now the case has passed to the local prosecutor Florije Salihu-Shamolli.

During 2018 no other hearing was scheduled regarding this case, as according to BC in Pristina, this case is not within the group of cases with priority94. The trial against Rugova and others was scheduled to be held on January 29, 2019 but this could not be achieved as four of the defendants did not appear in the courtroom, for which the trial failed to begin, and it was postponed indefinitely by the presiding judge Naime Krasniqi-Jashanica. 95

92 “The judge is replaced, the process against Ukë Rugova and others returns at the beginning” Oath for Justice. November 29, 2016 (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/nderrohet-gjyqtari-kthehet-ne-fillim-procesi-ndaj- uke-rugoves-dhe-te-tjereve/ ) 93“ Ukë Rugova case is transferred to locals, the court hearings will be scheduled after the response of the Supreme Court”. Oath for Justice. January 30, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/rasti-i-ukes- rugoves-dorezohet-te-vendoret-caktimi-i-seancave-ne-pritje-te-pergjigjes-nga-supremja/ ) 94 “The case against Ukë Rugova and others is not a priority for the Court, about eight months and there still is no court hearing scheduled regarding it”. Oath for Justice. June 12, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/gjykata-nuk-e-ka-prioritet-gjykimin-e-uke-rugoves-dhe-te-tjereve-per-rreth-tete- muaj-nuk-caktohet-asnje-seance/ )

95 “Four accused are absent, trial against Ukë Rugova and others fails” Oath for Justice. ana29 2019. (nhttps://betimiperdrejtesi.com/mungojne-kater-te-akuzuar-deshton-gjykimi-ndaj-uke-rugoves- dhe-te-tjereve/ )

%"! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

The other representative case of corruption for legal violations and unprofessional treatment is the case "Stenta 1", where the defendant is the former Minister of Health, Ferid Agani, who is even an targeted case. On June 15, 2016, the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor filed an indictment against the former Minister of Health, Ferid Agani and 63 other individuals, for corruptive criminal offences. Distinctive of this case is that the indictment has been filed by the Prosecutor of the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor, in violation of the law and judicial practice in Kosovo, a finding that KLI has raised in previous reports.96

So far, four prosecutors have been replaced while working on “Stenta” case. The Prosecutor who filed the indictment does not represent it. The indictment was filed in June 2016, but the reading of charges in indictment had not taken place for a period of time, since the prosecution had failed to provide evidence to all defendants in the language they understand. This resulted in 5 postponed court hearings. On February 26, 2018, the presiding judge, Shadije Gërguri, for the purpose of efficiency of the case, ordered the severance of proceedings in three parts. Since then, Ferid Agani and Gani Shabani are separately adjudicated as a case. 97 In the case of Ferid Agani and Gani Shabani, the indictment has also been affirmed by the Court of Appeals and this cases is already at the phase of main trial.

96 “Fight, prosecution or amnesty in the name of the fight against corruption?”. Kosovo Law Institute. December 2017. (See link http://kli-ks.org/lufte-persekutim-apo-amnisti-ne-emer-te-luftes-kunder-korrupsionit/ ) 97 “After the severance of proceedings, former Minister Agani and former Secretary Shabani, again plead not guilty”. Oath for Justice. February 26, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/pas-vecimit-te-procedures- ndaj-tyre-serish-deklarohen-te-pafajshem-ish-ministri-agani-dhe-ish-sekretari-shabani/ )

%#! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Another representative case of violations of legal deadlines, policies and strategies adopted by the prosecutorial and judicial system in handling corruption cases with priority is the case of Emrush Thaci, former Kosovo General Correctional Service Director and 23 other individuals.

Although the indictment was filed on November 17, 2016, the initial hearing regarding this case has been scheduled only on September 25, 2017 or ten months after the indictment had been filed, but this hearing failed to be held on November 7 and 24, 2017, due to the continuous absence of defendants in court hearings. Finally, on December 6, 2017, the initial hearing has been held, where all the defendants had pleaded not guilty to the criminal offence they had been charged with.98 This initial hearing has been held more than a year after the legal time limit set by the CPCK.

The second hearing regarding this case has been held on February 2, 2018, once more, violating the legal time limit provided by Article 245, paragraph 5 of the CPCK. The indictment against Emrush Thaqi, Sami Lushtaku and others, has been confirmed by the Basic Court in Pristina in April 2018, as well as by the Court of Appeals in July of the same year.99 But even after this, the judge has not scheduled the hearing of the main trial yet.

98 “Sami Lushtaku pleads not guilty regarding his escape from the UCCK, says that he does not believe in EULEX’s justice”. Oath for Justice. December 6, 2017. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/sami-lushtaku- deklarohet-i-pafajshem-per-arratisjen-e-tij-nga-qkuk-ja-thote-se-nuk-i-beson-drejtesise-se-eulex-it/ ) 99 “The court of Appeals affirms the indictment regarding the case of the escape of Sami Lushtaku from the UCCK”. Oath for Justice. July 3, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/apeli-verteton-aktakuzen-ne- rastin-e-arratisjes-se-sami-lushtakut-nga-qkuk-ja/ )

%$! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

aaananaSokol Bashota,anadaad nanadnndndna

On November 25, 2013, the ACA filed a criminal report regarding allegations of abuse in the Municipality of Klina. On February 24, 2014, the Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision to initiate investigations, whereas on August 4, 2016, the EULEX prosecutor filed the indictment against Sokol Bashota, Mayor of Klina and three other individuals. From the time the decision to initiate investigations was issued have passed more than 1800 days, and this case in still on the main trial stage.

The initial hearing for this case has been scheduled to the BC in Peja, on December 12, 2016, or more than three months after the 30 day legal time limit set by the CPCK to hold an initial hearing after filing the indictment. The second hearing has been scheduled on January 23, 2017 but has been postponed because prosecutor Valeria Bolici stated at the court hearing that she did not receive any other document regarding the objections to evidence submitted by the parties, except those of the accused Bashota.100 On March 31, 2017, the trial against Bashota and others started from the beginning because of the amendment and extension of the indictment made by Special Prosecutor Valeria Bolici.101

The second hearing regarding this case has been held three months later, on June 30, 2017, once again violating the legal time limit provided by Article 245, paragraph 5 of the CPCK. On November 30, 2017, the first instance court rejected requests for dismissal of the indictment by the defendants, but after the appeals of the defendants’ attorneys, the Court of Appeals in March 2018 returned the case for reconsideration.102

100 “The prosecutor has not received all the documents to object to evidence, thus the second hearing is postponed regarding the case of the Mayor of Klina and three other defendants”. Oath for Justice. January 23, 2017. (See link http://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokurorja-nuk-i-ka-pranuar-te-gjitha-shkresat-per-kundershtimin- e-provave-shtyhet-shqyrtimi-i-dyte-ne-rastin-e-kryetarit-te-klines-dhe-tre-te-akuzuarve-tjere/ ) 101“ The trial against the Mayor of Klina, Sokol Bashota, starts from the beginning”. Oath for Justice. March 31, 2017. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/nis-prej-fillimi-gjykimi-ndaj-kryetarit-te-klines-sokol-bashota/ ) 102 “The Court of Appeals returns to reinstatement the case against former Mayor of Klina, Sokol Bashota”. Oath for Justice. March 10, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/apeli-e-kthen-ne-rivendosje-rastin- ndaj-ish-kryetarit-te-klines-sokol-bashota/ )

%%! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Even after the case has been returned for reconsideration, the first instance court, on April 19, 2018, decided the same as the first time, again rejecting requests of the accused to dismiss the indictment. This first instance decision has also been affirmed by the Court of Appeals in May 2018.103

After the confirmation of the indictment by the end of October 2018, six court hearings have been scheduled, of which, three failed to be held. At the hearing of December 3, 2018, the court decided that a financial expertise should be conducted in order to determine the price of the apartments that are subject to this indictment, 104 meanwhile from that time no other hearing has been scheduled yet.

103 “The Court of Appeals confirms the indictment against former Mayor of Klina, Sokol Bashota and others”. Oath for Justice. May 30, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/apeli-konfirmon-aktakuzen-ndaj-ish- kryetarit-te-klines-sokol-bashota-dhe-te-tjereve/ ) 104 “Financial expertise is assigned in the case against Sokol Bashota and others”. Oath for Justice. December 3, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/caktohet-ekspertize-financiare-ne-gjykimin-ndaj-sokol- bashotes-dhe-te-tjereve/ )

56 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

57 The The Prosecutor The first The second Prosecutor who The high- who compiled represented instance instance profile accused the indictment the indictment Judge The Decision Judge The Decision

DISMISSAL DISMISSAL

Muharrem Shabani Shyqyri Syla Ismet Ujkani Burim Ademi Fillim Skoro

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Ragip Begaj Haki Gecaj Haki Gecaj Artan Sejrani Fillim Skoro

DISMISSAL DISMISSAL

Ragip Begaj Abdurrahim Islami Abdurrahim Islami Gëzim Pozhegu Fillim Skoro

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Dragan Nikoliq Shaban Spahiu Shaban Spahiu Naser Maliqi Fillim Skoro

PUNISHMENT 6 MONTHS OF SUSPENDED ACQUITTAL IMPRISONMENT

Dragan Nikoliq Shaban Spahiu Shaban Spahiu Agim Ademi Xhevdet Abazi

DISMISSAL DISMISSAL

Lutfi Haziri Ali Rexha Ali Rexha Afrim Shala Xhevdet Abazi

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Nexhat Demaku Feti Tunuzliu Feti Tunuzliu Valbona Musliu Mejreme Memaj

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Mehmet Krasniqi Agron Bajrami Agron Bajrami Afërdita Bytyçi Driton Muharremi

DISMISSAL

Agim Bahtiri Agron Bajrami Agron Bajrami Beqir Halili Mejreme Memaj 58 The The Prosecutor The first The second Prosecutor who The high- who compiled represented instance instance profile accused the indictment the indictment Judge The Decision Judge The Decision

COMPLETED REJECTION WITHOUT APPEAL

Salim Jenuzi Sefer Morina Genc Nixha Ajser Skenderi Driton Muharremi

PUNISHMENT PUNISHMENT 10 MONTHS OF 10 MONTHS OF SUSPENDED SUSPENDED IMPRISONMENT IMPRISONMENT

Sreqko Spasiq Shaban Spahiu Shaban Spahiu Afrim Shala Fillim Skoro

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Sreqko Spasiq Agron Uka Agron Uka Aziz Shaqiri Fillim Skoro

COMPLETED REJECTION WITHOUT APPEAL

Qemajl Mustafa Shaban SpahiuShaban Spahiu Naser Maliqi

DISMISSAL DISMISSAL

Pal Lekaj Sylë Hoxha Faik Halili Gëzim Pozhegu Xhevdet Abazi

PUNISHMENT 36 MONTHS ON GOING EFFECTIVE

Shukri Buja Agron Bajrami Agron Bajrami Beqir Kalludra

COMPLETED REJECTION WITHOUT APPEAL

Sasha Mirkoviq Shaban Spahiu Shaban Spahiu Agim Ademi

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Sasha Mirkoviq Shaban Spahiu Shaban Spahiu Naser Maliqi Tonka Berishaj

ACQUITTAL ON GOING

Sasha Mirkoviq Arben Ismajli Arben Ismajli Agim Ademi 59 The The Prosecutor The first The second Prosecutor who The high- who compiled represented instance instance profile accused the indictment the indictment Judge The Decision Judge The Decision

REJECTION REJECTION

Sasha Mirkoviq Afrim Shefkiu Afrim Shefkiu Zyhdi Haziri Abdullah Ahmeti

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Sasha Mirkoviq Shaban Spahiu Shaban Spahiu Agim Ademi Abdullah Ahmeti

FINE COMPLETED 4500 EURO WITHOUT APPEAL

Svetisllav Ivanoviq Rabije Jakupi Rabije Jakupi Emine Salihu

ACQUITTAL ON GOING

Fatmir Limaj Charles Hardaway Charles Hardaway Marie Tuma Mejreme Memaj

DISMISSAL DISMISSAL

Ramë Buja Ali Rexha Ali Rexha Valon Kurtaj Fillim Skoro

PUNISHMENT 12 MONTHS OF SUSPENDED REJECTION IMPRISONMENT

Astrit Haraqija Drita Hajdari Hivzi Bajraktari Suzana Çerkini Fillim Skoro

PUNISHMENT 12 MONTHS OF SUSPENDED ACQUITTAL IMPRISONMENT

Valton Beqiri Drita Hajdari Hivzi Bajraktari Suzana Çerkini Fillim Skoro

DISMISSAL DISMISSAL

Dalibor Jevtiq Sylë Hoxha Sylë Hoxha Valon Kurtaj Mejreme Memaj

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Valdrin Lluka Habibe Salihi Habibe Salihi Hamdi Ibrahimi Fillim Skoro 60 The The Prosecutor The first The second Prosecutor who The high- who compiled represented instance instance profile accused the indictment the indictment Judge The Decision Judge The Decision

PUNISHMENT 24 MONTHS OF SUSPENDED ON GOING IMPRISONMENT

Etem Arifaj Drita Hajdari Drita Hajdari Vesel Ismaili

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Salih Mekaj Drita Hajdari Drita Hajdari Shasivar Hoti Driton Muharremi

PUNISHMENT 24 MONTHS OF SUSPENDED ACQUITTAL IMPRISONMENT

Enver Hasani Drita Hajdari Drita Hajdari Arben Hoti Mejreme Memaj

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Mazllum Baraliu Sefer Morina Sefer Morina Skender Çoçaj Mejreme Memaj

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Shpresa Bakija Agron Uka Agron Uka Afrim Shala Abdullah Ahmeti

ACQUITTAL ON GOING

Ilir Tolaj Admir Shala Florije Shamolli Valbona Musliu

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Shyqeri Haxha Fikrije Fejzullahu Fikrije Fejzullahu Valbona Musliu Vahid Halili

PUNISHMENT 36 MONTHS ACQUITTAL EFFECTIVE

Hysni Hoxha Haki Gecaj Haki Gecaj Beqir Kalludra Driton Muharremi

ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL

Hysni Hoxha Admir Shala Sylë Hoxha Arben Hoti Xhevdet Abazi 61 The The Prosecutor The first The second Prosecutor who The high- who compiled represented instance instance profile accused the indictment the indictment Judge The Decision Judge The Decision

REJECTION REJECTION

Hysni Hoxha Tomas Meskauskas Paul Flynn Shasivar Hoti Abdullah Ahmeti

REJECTION REJECTION

Nuhi Uka Danilo CicareliDanilo Cicareli Arcadius Sedeck Fillim Skoro

DISMISSAL DISMISSAL

Shaban Buza Agron Matjani Ali Uka Nikolë Komani Mejreme Memaj

Naim Abazi

DISMISSAL Florije ON GOING Salihu Shamolli Agron Mustafa Abdurrahim Islami Lutfi Shala

Naim Abazi

DISMISSAL ON GOING Florije Salihu Shamolli Ejup Qerimi Abdurrahim Islami Lutfi Shala

PUNISHMENT 12 MONTHS OF ON GOING SUSPENDED IMPRISONMENT

Ramadan Muja Natasha Vicary Fikrije Fejzullahu Agim Ademi

Table 18 – Decisions of the first and second instance regarding the indictments filed for high-profile in the past three years.

62 Red color shows the failure of indictments, including: dismissal, rejection, acquittal of the accused;

Yellow color shows imposed punishments, including: punishments of suspended imprisonment and punishments of a fine;

Green color shows imposed punishments including effective imprisonment;

No color shows cases that are still ongoing at the Court of ON GOING Appeals in Kosovo.

63 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

IX. Confiscation of assets benefitet thorugh criminal offences of corruption

During this period, KLI has monitored the activities of prosecutors and judges related to the implementation of legal provisions on freezing, seizure and confiscation of the assets benefited through criminal offence of corruption. Out of all corruption cases monitored during these three years, in all Basic Courts, KLI found that prosecutors in very rare cases implement in practice the legal provisions dealing with the requests for seizure and confiscation against perpetrators of corruption criminal offences.

KLI has identified 69 cases of corruption, in which claims for seizure or confiscation of assets have been filed, which proves a limited number of cases where prosecutors have filed such claims.

The access of the prosecutorial and judicial system in relation to the data of seizure and confiscation of assets benefited through criminal offence of corruption, continues to remain a challenge. NCCEC does not have a profiled database for certain criminal offenses. KLI has repeatedly requested for this database to be singled out, a request addressed to NCCEC also by KPC. For more, please see the table for all monitored cases in which there was seizure and confiscation for criminal offences of corruption in Annex 2, at the end of this report.105

105 Note: At the end of this report, in Annex 2, find attached the table for all data of seizure/confiscation in criminal offences of corruption monitored by KLI.

64 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

X. Special findings of KLI in the three-year monitoring of corruption court cases

As a result of systematic monitoring and research regarding the treatment of corruption cases, KLI has identified numerous subjective issues as well as interventions from within and outside justice system, especially political interventions in the work of prosecutors and judges while handling corruption cases. In this regard, some of the problems raised by KLI during these three years, which are related to independence, impartiality and professionalism in handling corruption cases are shown below. a. The battle of Councils for excuse in public regarding the failures in fighting corruption

The fight against corruption continues to be the highest state priority, including the KJC and KPC, which have prepared strategies and action plans106 for handling corruption cases with absolute priority. Despite Kosovo's advanced legal framework and the adoption of policies to fight corruption, the results in practice show that corruption of high-profile continues to be amnestied, by not yet achieving an announcement of a final judgement with effective imprisonment. In this regard, during these years, there have been investigative procedures, filed indictments and court proceedings for corruption cases, including high profile. Regarding this profile, so far all cases have failed. For the failure of these cases, there have been mutual accusations of judiciary and prosecution, about the fact that who carries the blame for the amnesty of high profile individuals charged for corruption. Following are raised some of the most problematic issues regarding the battle of the two Councils to pass the ball to the other party for failures in fighting corruption.

1. KJC-KPC conflict regarding the failures in fighting corruption

During 2018, both councils have made mutual accusations about the failures of the justice system in fighting corruption. More concretely, regarding the fact who is guilty for the failure of indictments filed against high profile individuals. In relation to this issue, the Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi himself, and the National Coordinator for Combating Economic Crimes, Shqipdon Fazliu, have been subject of investigation by the ODC. This Council, within a very short time frame, had closed investigations in these cases.

Before the conflict started with regard to the failure of corruption indictments against high- profile individuals, it was the Chairman of KJC, Nehat Idrizi, who at the meeting held on March 1, 2018 stated that prosecutors are leaving the "hot potato" in their hands. Idrizi made this statement while the annual work report of the Basic Court in Gjakova was being reviewed. In this report, it appeared that some cases reached the statutory limitation. However, according to the deputy Chairman of this Court, Nikollë Komani, it is because the prosecution office itself filed incitements that already reached the statutory limitation, and the Court where he works only issued a ruling that the case has reached relative statutory

106 Note: KLI since 2013 as a result of systematic monitoring of judicial and prosecutorial system in handling corruption cases, has offered specific findings, assesments and recommendations as well as has helped both councils in drafting Action Plans to handle corruption cases with absolute priority. 65 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 limitation, because such thing already happened while the cases were in the prosecution office. Idrizi further said that if the Courts are guilty, they must accept it, on the contrary it must be said to the prosecution offices that it is their fault.107.

But the conflict was intensified at the meeting held on May 30, 2018 in KPC, during which the Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi found the courts guilty that are not passing indictments that involve important people, which are accused for criminal offenses of corruption. During his reporting, Chief Prosecutor Lumezi stated that in relation to corruption cases that do not go to the courts, according to him, are only happening when it comes to important names.

"It is not true what is reported in the media that most of our indictments are dismissed in the Court. In 89.15% of the cases, these indictments go to the Court and the same receive judgements of conviction. However, this situation is not the same in cases of corruption. But this is a big question mark. Why do people who have no name and surname are sentenced by the Court and the indictments are confirmed? While those indictments where important people are involved with names and surnames, they do not go to the Court? However, we do not comment court decisions even when we disagree with them, except when we exercise legal remedies, "said Chief Prosecutor Lumezi108.

Also, NCCEC Shqipdon Fazliu, at the show "Click" on RTV21, on the same day stated that indictments of State Prosecutor are dismissed only when it comes to individuals belonging to high profile.

Regarding these statements, KJC, five days later, on June 4, 2018, held an extraordinary meeting in which the statements of the State Prosecutor were called as interference in the judicial system. The Chairman of the KJC, Nehat Idrizi, and the President of the Supreme Court, Enver Peci, considered these statements as interference in their work, while the President of the Appeal Court, Hasan Shala, said that State Prosecutor is trying to attribute their own failures to the judiciary109.

ODC on June 4, in a response to the "Oath for Justice" said that it was not informed about these accusations and counteraccusations110. But four days later, through an e-mail, ODC informed KLI that the disciplinary investigation against Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër

107 “Chairman of the KJC: Prosecutors are leaving to our hand the “hot potato”. Oath for Justice. March 1, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/kryesuesi-i-kgjk-se-prokuroret-po-na-e-lene-ne-dore-pataten-e- nxehte/). (Last accessed on January 22, 2018). 108 “Chief prosecutor Lumezi says that courts are dismissing indictments when it comes to important people”. Oath for Justice. May 30, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/kryeprokurori-lumezi-thote-se-gjykatat- po-i-hedhin-poshte-aktakuzat-kur-behet-fjale-per-njerez-te-rendesishem/) . (Last accessed on 22 January 2018). 109 “Statements of the Chief State Prosecutor for dismissal of corruption indictments, heads of judiciary call them interference in this system (Video)”. Oath for Justice. June 4, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/deklaratat-e-prokurorit-te-shtetit-per-hudhje-te-aktakuzave-te-korrupsionit-kreret- e-gjyqesorit-i-quajne-nderhyrje-ne-kete-sistem/). (Last time accessed on 22 January 2018). 110 “State Prosecution and the KJC in “fight”, ODC says that has no information on what is happening”. Oath for Justice. June 4, 2018. (See link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokuroria-e-shtetit-dhe-kgjk-ne-lufte-zpd- thote-se-ska-informacion-se-cfare-po-ndodhe/) . (Last time accessed on 22 January 2018).

66 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Lumezi and the National Coordinator for Combating Economic Crimes, Shqipdon Fazliu, has been closed.

"The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), according to official duty, has assessed the allegations raised by "Oath for Justice "claiming that, Chief Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi, at the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council (KPC) meeting, held on May 30, 2018 , "has found the courts guilty for not passing the indictments involving important people, who are accused for criminal offenses of corruption". ODC has also assessed the claims that National Coordinator for Combating Economic Crime Shqipdon Fazliu, on the TV show "Click", stating that: "The indictments of State Prosecutor are dismissed only when it comes to individuals belonging to high profile". Regarding the abovementioned allegations for the Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi, the ODC found that his discussion at the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council meeting held on May 30, 2018 was in the capacity of the member of Kosovo Prosecutorial Council. Since his discussion was in the capacity of the member of Prosecutorial Council, ODC does not have the legal mandate to investigate raised allegations of potential misconduct in the specific case. While, regarding the abovementioned allegations for the National Coordinator for Combating Economic Crime, Shqipdon Fazliu, ODC has found that prosecutor Fazliu during the show did not mention the names of the judges who decided for the cases, did not mention the hierarchy and name of the court, but has simply expressed professional opinion about an important issue for the rule of law and order in Kosovo. Pursuant to Article 35 of the Law on Kosovo Prosecutorial Council, ODC has assessed the allegations raised regarding this issue but, for now there is no legal basis and sufficient basis to initate a disciplinary case for this issue", it was stated in ODC’s written answer.

KLI from the systematic monitoring that does to ODC for many years now, notes that ODC favorized this case, by making selective treatment of the same cases for different individuals. Initially, there are rare cases when ODC starts and closes the investigation for 4 days, as in the case of Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi, and NCCEC Shqipdon Fazliu. On the other side, due to the interviews he had given to a particular media where he criticized the judicial power, ODC had sent to the Disciplinary Committee of the KPC, the Chief Prosecutor of the Basic Prosecution Office in Pristina, Imer Beka. Against Beka, the Disciplinary Committee of the KPC had imposed the disciplinary measure "rebuke".

On the other hand, KLI sees as very concerning the "ping-pong" game between the prosecutorial and judicial system regarding their failure to fight high-profile corruption. In this respect, both systems must contribute. But, it is generally recognized that in the case when a prosecutor sends to the Court an indictment with convincing evidences against the defendants, for the Court is extremely difficult to avoid the right decision. Also, the State Prosecutor has in disposition the regular remedies and extraordinary legal remedies, in cases when he is not satisfied with the decision of the Court. Also it is a duty of the State Prosecutor, which if it proves that the courts are dismissing the indictments, in cases when, as the Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi says, big names are involved, to investigate and send certain judges before justice, as "issuing unlawful judicial decision" based on the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo is a criminal offense. Thus, this relation should work, and

67 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 the State Prosecutor in any form is not allowed to comment court judgements, because this consists a violation of the Code of Ethics.

1. The tendency of the Councils to fight corruption through recommendations

KJC, KPC, Presidents of the Courts, Chief State Prosecutors and the Minister of Justice on March 22, 2018 had a meeting, where they discussed regarding the next steps on the fight against corruption, as a final criterion for visa liberalization.

This meeting was held only one day after the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo ratified the International Agreement to determine the Border with Montenegro, or as it was known to the public the Demarcation with Montenegro.

During this meeting there were given six recommendations on the next steps of fighting corruption. “1. To hold regular monthly meetings in this composure, 2. Prosecutions and Courts to be always coordinated, 3. Court hearings to not be postponed over 10 days, 4. The number of the judges in the Basic Court in Pristina to be increased, 5. Limiting judges to be part of trainings, and 6. Increasing transparency in relation to media and civil society”.

During this meeting, media and civil society were excluded, because as it was said during this meeting, data that are not public will be discussed. But, contrary to the media and civil society, in the meeting was present also the Minister of Justice, Abelard Tahiri.

Anyway, KLI monitored regularly these recommendations, if they were being implemented. KLI has found that the recommendation that corruption court hearings should not be postponed over 10 days, has not been respected by the courts in Kosovo since the first day when these recommendations should have been implemented. Also, the other recommendation on regular meetings of this kind was never implemented, since such a meeting has never been held again. b. Controlling, interfering and political influences in the prosecutorial system

One of the main problems of the justice system in Kosovo still remains the political and group of interest’s interferences in the judicial and prosecutorial system. KLI, now a decade old, constantly raises its voice regarding the independence of the judicial and prosecutorial power, on whom it has presented findings, evaluations and recommendations how to address this problem. Below are discussed some of the most problematic cases that are directly linked to political interferences, interferences of the executive and also interferences of the Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi on the individual independence of prosecutors and prosecutorial system, on the independence of the judges and the judicial system.

68 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

1. Centralizing high-profile investigations, unlawful control of the Chief State Prosecutor

On September 30, 2015, Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi, adopted an unlawful mandatory instruction, through which he has forced all prosecutors that within five days of obtaining an information/high-profile corruption case to inform the Chief Prosecutor of that prosecution office regarding this. Based on this instruction, the Chief Prosecutor of that prosecution office, as soon as gets notified regarding such an information, within eight days is forced to inform the Chief State Prosecutor.

The Chief State Prosecutor, since holding this position has started to take unlawful measures and actions, with the sole intention of controlling the prosecutorial system in handling the corruption cases, especially high-profile corruption.

Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi, continuously, violating the law has established commissions through which has built mechanisms and practices to control every prosecutor and prosecution office, in order to have information and control each high-profile corruption case that is ongoing. Moreover, the Mandatory Instruction has no legal basis and violates and represents scandalous interference on the individual independence of prosecutors on handling corruption cases, while also enabling chances for a large number of individuals to have access to such information and then be published in media and be known to the public, which has happened continuously.

Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi has abused the provision of the applicable law on State Prosecutor, which enables the Chief State Prosecutor to present written rules, instructions and mandatory decision for all Chief Prosecutors of respective prosecution offices and Prosecutors, to respect legality, to increase efficiency and to implement uniquely all practices and legislation.

This provision aims for the Chief State Prosecutor to present rules and general instructions, in order to avoid situations when prosecutors may build prosecution practices that violate the applicable law or legal precedent, and also to assure that a unique criminal prosecution is being implemented by all prosecution offices.

KLI assesses that such a view of the Chief State Prosecutor is a strong interference in the individual independence of prosecutors handling corruption cases. Such independence of prosecutors is guaranteed by the Constitution, Law on KPC, Law on State Prosecutor and international standards.111

KLI assesses that interferences and centralizing case management to control each information regarding cases, shows that the Chief State Prosecutor has built practices in order to amnesty

111 “Chapter II, Fundamental Principles, Article 3, Independence and impartiality of the State Prosecutor”. Law on State Prosecutor. Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo. September 30, 2010. (Follow link http://www.psh- ks.net/repository/docs/Ligji_per_prokurorin_e_shtetit_(shqip).pdf)

69

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 real perpetrators of corruption criminal offences, which is shown by the fact that in the las three years, there is no final judgement against high – profile individuals, who have been sentenced by effective imprisonment. KLI continuously has raised concerns regarding the manner of the indictment filing against high-profile individuals accused of corruption. These indictments have been filed without prior investigations and professional prosecution, offering proof and evidence, but as such have failed in the first hearing. KLI has assessed continuously that this manner of filing indictments, that have been unable to be proven in front of the court, happen for three reasons. First, because of the lack of professionalism of prosecutors and investigators. Second, it happens on purpose, in order to persecute certain individuals based on political agendas and agendas of several interest groups. And third, because of the amnesty that is offered to the officials accused of corruption, since the indictments against them fail because they lack proof and evidence, and this way they cannot be prosecuted again for the same offences regarding which they were adjudicated once.

In conclusion, based on the lack of specific results on the fight against high-profile corruption, and assessing the behavior and the relation of Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi with the politics and interest groups, KLI assess that the purpose of this Instruction has been exclusively to control prosecutors and Chief Prosecutors while handling high-profile corruption cases.

1. Interferences of Chief State Prosecutor’s Office in the investigations of corruption cases

KLI considers that the concerning situation of not handling corruption cases is confirmed by analyzing the trends of unsolved cases on prosecution offices, where hundreds of unsolved criminal reports filed since decades can be found, and several of them have reached absolute statutory limitation. KLI continuously in its findings during the monitoring process of prosecution offices regarding handling of corruption cases, has expressed its concerns on the manner of solving these cases and the large number of dismissed cases or terminations. Based on the statistics provided by prosecution offices, the dismissal and termination of corruption cases results on being a concerning phenomenon in almost all prosecution offices, where over 50% of them have ended in termination or dismissal.

In this regard, KLI in its periodical reports has recommended KPC to establish a Commission composed by experienced prosecutors, who can analyze this phenomenon and then compile a report regarding the findings and reasons why such a large number of cases are closed in prosecution offices, either by dismissing criminal reports or by terminating the investigations. KLI’s recommendation aimed to make KPC analyze the actual situation, to assess the quality of criminal reports in order to identify if they have been compiled badly by the submitters or if there is lack professionalism of prosecutors who handle such cases, or if there are other reasons that can be identified in practice. Based on these findings, KPC would be able to develop politics in order to successfully fight corruption, to learn from the mistakes that have been implemented up until now, and also to address the problem institutionally. KLI has

70 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 recommended the establishment of this commission in accordance with the applicable law, since the Commission would be responsible only to assess closed cases by a prosecutor’s decision and each assessment or analysis deriving from this commission would not be considered as an interference on the prosecutor’s job, or their independence as guaranteed by the Constitution and the law.

Chief State Prosecutor on October 6, 2015,112 has issued the decision A.no.404/2015, to create an Oversight Commission for criminal corruption cases, composed by the Deputy Chief State Prosecutor Sevdije Morina and three prosecutors of Chief State Prosecutor’s Office, Besim Kelmendi, Lulëzim Sylejmani and Laura Pula. The Commission has to visit all prosecution offices and request from each prosecutor, corruption cases that are currently in work, in order to assess their actions. After the verification, the Commission has to compile a report, and present it to the Chief State Prosecutor.

KLI has never recommended, neither agrees to establish and empower such a Commission, (“to request from each prosecutor, corruption cases that are currently in work, in order to assess their actions”), which is given an unlawful mandate and in violation with the spirit and independence granted by the Constitution and the Law, for prosecutors during the handling of cases that have been assigned to them.

KLI considers that the mandate of this Commission is unlawful and this directly affects the independence of prosecutors’ decision-making.113 Interferences to have access to a case, to take it from a prosecutor and assign it to another prosecutor are a legal right set exclusively for the Chief State Prosecutor, and only for individual cases, and this can be provided through a special decision in written and reasoned form, but this right cannot be delegated to anyone else, as in this case to the Commission. Such interferences can only be made for specific cases and specific circumstances, but not to apply widely for a category of criminal offences, such as in this case for corruption offences by this Commission, which, KLI assesses, that as such interferes severely on the individual independence of prosecutors in cases of corruption, independence granted by the Constitution, the Law on the KPC, the law on SP and international standards.114

112 State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi’s Decision naming the Oversight Commission on corruption cases. (Follow link http://www.psh-ks.net/repository/docs/Nr_997_2015-Vendim- Emerimi_i_Komisionit_mbikeqyres_per_rastet_penale_te_korrupsionit_(5).pdf) 113 “The guarantees of not interfering on the individual prosecutor’s job, determine that in most cases the decision to not prosecute should be based only on sufficient evidence. Exceptionally, in practice there can be cases when the prosecutor would cause harm of a wider interest, social economic or regarding security. In those cases when the public interest is questioned, the prosecutor must be more cautious to not violate rule of law and in these cases he/she can consult other experienced individual, or the ones with more expertise regarding these cases. But it still is in the prosecutor’s power to decide if prosecuting is in the best interest of the public. If the prosecutor accepts any instruction in such case, the instruction should be reasoned and when possible open to the public”. REPORT ON EUROPEAN STANDARDS AS REGARDS THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM:PART II – THE PROSECUTION SERVICE, Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th plenary session, Venice, 17-18 December 2010, P.11. (Follow link http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/capacitybuilding/Source/judic_reform/europeanStandards_en.pdf) 114 Chapter II, Fundamental Principles, Article 3, Independence and impartiality of State Prosecutor. Law on State Prosecutor. Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo. September 30, 2010. (Follow link http://www.psh- ks.net/repository/docs/Ligji_per_prokurorin_e_shtetit_(shqip).pdf)

71 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Anotgher unlawful instruction of the Chief State Prosecutor is also the instruction on handling criminal reports. The Chief State Prosecutor on April 29, 2016 issued the Instruction A.nr.258/2016, which forced all state prosecutors that within a period of three (3) months from the day of receiving the criminal report, to issue a Decision to Initiate Investigative Stage, if that criminal report was not dismissed.115 This Instruction was issued by the Chief Prosecutor from the meeting of the Collegium of all Chief Prosecutors of all Prosecution offices of the Republic of Kosovo. The above-mentioned instruction contradicts the principles and standards established by the CPCRK. This code nowhere does not specify the timeframe of 3 months, but in Article 82 clearly specifies the thirty (30) day deadline to handle the criminal report. This instruction is unlawful and as such KLI has recommended to be dismissed.116

1. Political interferences of the Chief State Prosecutor in the Veterans’ case and Pronto case

The State Prosecutor according to the Constitution has legal responsibility to prosecute individuals who are suspected of criminal offences. This is the body that has the primary mandate to fight criminality, in an independent, impartial and fair manner.117

Elez Blakaj, prosecutor in SPRK, on August 13, 2018 handed in his resignation.118 Whereas on August 16, 2018, through a letter posted on social media “Facebook”, informed the public opinion that on July 11, 2018, he handed the indictment for the case known as “Veterans”, in the office of the Chief Prosecutor of the SPRK, Reshat Millaku.119

After the publication of the first letter, there were numerous reactions that included accusations against the personality and professionalism of prosecutor Blakaj, that forced him to present another letter on August 20, 2018, being a whistle-blower. Prosecutor Blakaj, this time, in public, presented the threats and pressures he had since he started handling the “Veterans” case.120

115 Instruction No. 258/2016, issued by Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi on April 29, 2016. (Follow link http://www.psh-ks.net/repository/docs/Nr.578.2016-_Udhezim_-_ZKPSH.pdf (Accessible lastly on October 5, 2016). 116 Miftaraj E. and Musliu B. “The rhetoric of fighting corruption: Report on monitoring process of corruption cases handling in the justice system in Kosovo”. Kosovo Law Institute. Pristina. October 27, 2016. P. 15, 16 and 17. 117 Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. Article 109. 118 “Due to threats, Special Prosecutor Elex Blakaj hands in his resignation”. Koha.net. August 15, 2018. (Follow link https://www.koha.net/arberi/111200/per-shkak-te-kercenimeve-jep-doreheqje-prokurori-special- elez-blakaj/) 119 Special prosecutor, Elez Blakaj, during his resignation, confirms that from 11 July the filed indictment was handed to Chief Prosecutor, Reshat Millaku”. Oath for Justice. 16 August 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokurori-special-elez-blakaj-ne-doreheqjen-e-tij-konfirmon-se-nga-11-korriku- aktakuzen-e-ngritur-ia-ka-dorezuar-kryeprokurorit-special-reshat-millaku/) 120 “Elez Blakaj speaks out, says that he was threatened from veterans, mentioned the pressure from Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi for the KLA veterans and the case known as “Pronto”. Oath for Justice. August

72

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Blakaj, in the interview with “Oath for Justice”, stated that in every high-profile investigation, Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi, required explanations, even when high-profile individuals were simply subpoenaed as witnesses.121 Blakaj’s resignation and the reasons for this resignation caused several reactions from the public, including reactions from civil society, local and international institutions.

KLI considers that the resignation of prosecutor Blakaj, showed the situation of security and functioning of the prosecutorial system, where politics and interest groups are interfering in order to prevent independent investigations.122

The American Embassy in Kosovo considered Blakaj’s resignation as very discouraging.123 The U.S. Ambassador in Kosovo, Greg Delawie, named it sad day the day when prosecutor Blakaj handed in his resignation.124 Simultaneously, Delawie, at a lecture held in front of Law students, stated that regarding the “Veterans” case, which was being investigated by Blakaj, he had received threats from inside and outside of the justice system.125

The Office of the European Union in Kosovo also expressed its concerns about interference within the justice system, after Blakaj’s resignation. “Statements made by some politicians and prosecutors in Kosovo, risk key principles of the rule of law. Furthermore, they send discouraging signals to all legal officials that handle sensitive and important cases”.126

KPC on August 22, 2018, through a press release, stated that this institution is working in order that the State Prosecutor act independently and impartially. In this statement, the KPC, although called upon to protect and secure the independence of the prosecutorial system, also

20, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/flet-elez-blakaj-thote-se-kishte-kercenime-nga-veteranet- permend-presionin-e-kryeprokurori-aleksander-lumezi-per-veteranet-e-uck-se-dhe-rastin-pronto/) 121 “What does Blakaj say regarding the threats coming from the Chief Prosecutor Lumezi, Prime Minister Haradinaj and others? (Video)”. Oath for Justice. September 12, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/cfare-thote-blakaj-per-kercenimet-nga-kryeprokurori-lumezi-kryeministri- haradinaj-dhe-te-tjeret-video/ ) 122 “Political interference in the politicized prosecutorial system, alarm for the need for vetting of police, prosecution and courts”. Kosovo Law Institute. August 30, 2018. (Follow link http://kli-ks.org/nderhyrjet- politike-ne-sistemin-e-politizuar-prokurorial-alarm-per-nevojen-e-vetingut-ne-polici-prokurori-dhe-gjykata/) Page 4. 123 “American Embassy concerning about the resignation of Special Prosecutor: A very discouraging case”. KlanKosova.tv. August 15, 2018 (Follow link http://klankosova.tv/ambasada-amerikane-per-doreheqjen-e- prokurorit-special-rast-shume-dekurajues/ ) 124 Reaction of American Ambassador Greg Delawie via social media Facebook. August 15, 2018. (Follow link https://www.facebook.com/kosovo.usembassy/posts/2663396183686520 ) 125 “American ambassador says that KLI had no more than 15 thousand soldiers, says that there was pressure, and intimidation against Elez Blakaj”. Oath for Justice. August 31, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/ambasadori-amerikan-thote-se-uck-ja-skishte-me-shume-se-15-mije-ushtare-thote- se-pati-presion-dhe-frikesim-ndaj-prokurorit-blakaj/ ) 126 Reaction from the Office of the EU in Pristina on the Blakaj case. August 22, 2018. (Follow link https://www.facebook.com/610960288923231/posts/statement-by-the-eu-office-in-kosovoeu-special- representativethe-eu-is-closely-f/2059258884093357/ )

73 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 stated that this body will have no compromise on any prosecutor in case of failure to accomplish their duties.127

The Prosecutors Association, supervised by the Chief Prosecutor of the Appellate Prosecution, Haxhi Dërguti, who is called upon to protect the interest of prosecutors, did not defend prosecutor Blakaj. “Up until now, no prosecutor in the Prosecutorial System of Kosovo, including former prosecutor Blakaj, did not express any concerns, whether as a threat or as an influence in his or her independent and impartial work. Therefore, public statements about alleged threats and influences within the prosecutorial system, are made to cover his personal interests or anyone else’s”, was said in this statement.128

The Chief State Prosecutor’s Office also emphasized that this Office, never received information that prosecutor Blakaj was ever threatened regarding the “Veterans” case”.129 Furthermore, the Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi, in an interview with web-portal “Gazeta Express”, called Blakaj an unprofessional prosecutor, a coward, a failure and a low profile prosecutor. 130 Such statement of Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi was contradictory, due to the fact that a few days earlier, he gave positive assessments about Prosecutor Blakaj, by stating that “he did not resign because of threats because he was a determined prosecutor, honorable and brave”. 131 So, after Blakaj told his reasons regarding his resignation, Lumezi’s viewpoint also changed.

The Kosovo Prime Minister, Ramush Haradinaj also used offensive language. In an interview on the show “Interaktiv”, he called former Prosecutor Blakaj “chicken thief and ‘troublemaker’”. Also, he had stated that “a fugitive in Bllaca and Stankovec, cannot estimate the correct number of veterans”, of which Blakaj conducted intensive investigations for numerous months.132

In Blakaj’s interview with the “Oath for Justice”, among other things, he stated that Haradinaj's manner of co-operation with the prosecution was unacceptable, as according to

127 “KPC discusses behind closed doors former SPRK prosecutor, Elez Blakaj”. Oath for Justice. September 7, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/kpk-e-diskuton-me-dyer-te-mbyllura-doreheqjen-e-ish- prokurorit-te-psrk-se-elez-blakaj/ ) 128 “Prosecutors Association: Blakaj never expressed any threats”. Evropaelire.org (Follow link https://www.evropaelire.org/a/29449560.html ) 129 “Chief State Prosecutor talks about the threats made resigned prosecutor, Elez Blakaj”. Koha.net. August 15, 2018. (Follow link https://www.koha.net/arberi/111282/kryeprokurori-i-shtetit-tregon-per-kercenimet-ndaj- prokurorit-te-dorehequr-elez-blakaj/ ) 130 “Exclusive, Aleksandër Lumezi speaks: Elez Blakaj is a coward, failed prosecutor and unprofessional”. Gazetaexpress.com. August 20, 2018. (Follow link https://www.gazetaexpress.com/lajme/ekskluzive-flet- aleksander-lumezi-elez-blakaj-eshte-frikacak-prokuror-i-deshtuar-dhe-joprofesional-568679/?archive=1 ) 131 “Investigations have not started yet, Lumezi says that Blakaj did not leave because of threats”. Gazetaexpress.com. August 16, 2018. (Follow link https://www.gazetaexpress.com/lajme/ende-pa-nisur- hetimet-lumezi-thote-se-blakaj-nuk-iku-nga-kercenimet-567639/?archive=1 ) 132 “Haradinaj calls Blakaj a thief and a troublemaker - “A fugitive in Bllaca cannot evaluate the veterans”. Koha.net. August 21, 2018. (Follow link https://www.koha.net/video/112385/haradinaj-e-quan-blakajn-hajn-e- pishpirik-smund-te-vleresoje-veteranet-i-ikuri-ne-bllace/ )

74 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 him, the request for the prosecutor to report to the Prime Minister about the investigation is in contradiction with the constitutional regulation of Kosovo, which separates the powers. 133

The spirit of threats against Blakaj had gone too far. The AAK member of the parliament Shkumbin Demalijaj, in an interview on public television RTK, called Blakaj a “criminal”, “deserter”, “thief”, “idiot” and “hooligan”. He stated that if the state does not prosecute Blakaj in Kosovo and adjudicate him, then for the “blackmail”, according to him, that Blakaj has made to the public, he will pursue him privately.134

Despite such statements, the State Prosecutor did not see it reasonable to investigate Demalijaj’s public charges against prosecutor Blakaj. Only after the reaction of civil society and after 11 days of delay, the Basic Prosecution in Pristina decided to react. Upon the request of this prosecution, after the hearing held on September 28, 2018, the Basic Court in Pristina imposed 30 days of detention on remand to Demaliaj135. Following the appeal to this decision, the Court of Appeals on October 4, 2018 replaced the detention in remand with house detention.136 The veterans’ indictment was then formally filed in court by Special Prosecutor Afrim Shefkiu.

Afterwards, this indictment was returned to SPRK for improvement and clarification.137 The improved indictment was sent in Court on December 7, 2018 by the SPRK.138 c. Interferences and threats of the Chief State Prosecutor on judges’ independence

The Inter-institutional Tracking Mechanism report for the year 2016 states that during this year, prosecutors have submitted a total of 94 appeals to the Court of Appeals, whereas this court had approved only 6 of them, or as shown in percentage 6.38%.

In the Inter-institutional Tracking Mechanism report it is shown that during 2017, regarding corruption cases, prosecutors have submitted a total of 68 appeals to the Court of Appeals. But the report does not show the judgements of the Court of Appeals regarding the appeals of the prosecutors.

133“How did Prime Minister Haradinaj interfere in investigations of prosecutor Elez Blakaj? (Video)”. Oath for Justice. September 12, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/si-nderhyri-kryeministri-haradinaj-ne- hetimet e-prokurorit-elez-blakaj-video/ ) 134 “Demaliaj threatens Elez Blakaj: He is a deserter, thief, idiot and hooligan…, I will deal with him privately”. Telegrafi.com. September 17, 2018. (Follow link https://telegrafi.com/demaliaj-sulmon-rende-elez-blakajn-ai- eshte-dezertor-hajn-idiot-rrugac-do-te-merrem-privatisht-me-te/ ) 135 “One month of detention for MP Shkumbin Demalijaj”. Oath for Justice. September 28, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/nje-muaj-paraburgim-edhe-ndaj-deputetit-shkumbin-demalijaj/ ) 136 “MP Shkumbin Demalijaj released from detention in remand, he is given house detention”. Oath for Justice. October 4, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/deputeti-shkumbin-demalijaj-lirohet-nga- paraburgimi-i-caktohet-masa-e-arrestit-shtepiak/ ) 137 “Veterans’ indictment is returned to Special Prosecution for improvement and clarification”. Oath for Justice. October 10, 2018 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/aktakuza-e-veteraneve-i-kthehet- prokurorise-speciale-per-permiresim-dhe-qartesim/). (Accessible lastly on January 22, 2018). 138 “Special Prosecution submits in Court the improved indictment regarding the Veterans’ case”. Oath for Justice. December 7, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokuroria-speciale-e-dorezon-ne-gjykate- aktakuzen-e-plotesuar-ne-rastin-e-veteraneve/).

75 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

In the Inter-institutional Tracking Mechanism report it is shown that during 2018, regarding corruption cases, prosecutors have submitted a total of 63 appeals to the Court of Appeals. From these appeals, the Court of Appeals has approved only 6 of them, or 9.52 %.

This information only deepens SP’s failure to fight corruption over the last three years. In this regard, while the overwhelming majority of the indictments have failed in the Basic Courts, they also fail to succeed in the Court of Appeals when submitting appeals.

In the KPC’s meeting held on May 30, 2018, Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi stated that courts are dismissing the indictments regarding important individuals.

“It is not true what is reported in the media that most of our indictments are dismissed in court. In 89.15% of the cases, these indictments go through by the Court and they are completed by judgements of conviction. However, there is a different situation in corruption cases. But this is a big question mark. Why do people who have no name and surname are convicted by the Court and the indictments are confirmed. While the indictments involving important people with names and surnames, they do not go through by the Court. Nevertheless, we do not comment Court judgements, even when we disagree with them, except when exercising legal remedies.”

After this, on June 4, 2018, KJC held an extraordinary meeting, where these statements were discussed, which were said to be interfering with the justice system.

After the meeting, speaking for “Oath for Justice”, the President of the Court of Appeals Hasan Shala, stated that the prosecution indictments are groundless in evidence, and that the prosecution works for statistics, while attributing its failures to the judiciary. On the other hand, the Head of KPC Bahri Hyseni, does not see this fact as a failure of prosecutors’ appeals, but as a practice created by the Court of Appeals to dismiss prosecutors’ appeals. “Out of 100 complaints, there are only 6 or 7 that have been approved. We need to look at whether regarding these appeals has been created a practice for their dismissal, or if we have not yet managed to improve their quality. It is likely that the practice of dismissing these complaints is created”, Hyseni had stated at the KPC meeting held on February 21, 2019, when the Inter-institutional Tracking Mechanism report for 2018 was presented.

1. The phenomenon of prosecutors’ indictment withdrawal regarding corruption cases, without adequate reasoning

KLI has systematically monitored the handling of corruption cases in the courts and has noted a phenomenon of prosecutors withdrawing from indictments. Due to the role of the judge in criminal proceedings – the role of the arbitrator exclusively – in cases when prosecutors withdraw from indictments, criminal proceedings are terminated. In these cases, even if the prosecutor’s decision to withdraw from the indictment is not grounded, the judge cannot take any action. This phenomenon of prosecutors’ withdrawal from indictments is mainly expressed in high-profile cases.

76

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

One of the cases monitored by KLI is the case against the former Director of Kosovo Intelligence Agency, Driton Gashi.139 Prosecutor Feti Tunuzliu did not take more than two weeks to change his mind regarding the indictment filed against Gashi. The indictment against the aforementioned was filed by Tunuzliu on May 2016, whereas at the initial hearing on December 27, 2016, regarding which “The Oath for Justice” has reported, neither the prosecutor, nor the defendant Gashi, were present. The initial hearing was held on January 18, 2017, where the Prosecutor presented the indictment as a valid one in front of the Basic Court of Pristina. Meanwhile, after only 13 days, on the 1st of February, prosecutor Tunuzliu notified the presiding trial judge, Arben Hoti, that he wants to withdraw the indictment. In the statement of grounds, the Prosecutor has said that there is not enough evidence to support the grounded suspicion that Gashi had committed the criminal offense he was charged according to the indictment. Just one week after the withdrawal from the indictment, Driton Gashi was appointed as Director of the KIA. The indictment was filed based on the criminal report submitted by the Head of Division of Civil Aviation Security within MIA, Luan Ismajli, against Driton Gashi, for abusing official position. Ismajli acted this way because, according to the indictment, Gashi by a decision, had transferred Ismajli from the position of the Secretary General at the MIA to another division, thus moving him to a lower level position.

This was only one of the most representative cases of the Prosecutor’s withdrawal from the indictment, without new proof and evidence, but just by stating that he was not convinced that the criminal offence was committed, all this within a short period of time. In this case, no accountability mechanism has taken specific actions to hold this prosecutor responsible. KLI considers that in these cases, filing or withdrawing from the indictment by the prosecutor has been done intentionally and at the same time has publicly demanded responsibility from the accountability mechanisms. KLI has reported on dozens of such cases in which prosecutors have withdrawn the indictments at various stages, without new proof or evidence, that would change the factual situation from the one based on which the indictment was filed.140

Such cases have been present constantly during the process of monitoring corruption cases.141 There have been citizens who hovered over because of criminal proceedings initiated against

139 “Prosecutor Feti Tunuzliu a week prior the appointment of the Director of KIA, withdraws the indictment against Driton Gashi regarding the criminal offence “abusing official position””. Oath for Justice. February 8, 2017 (Follow link http://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokurori-feti-tunuzliu-nje-jave-para-emerimit-te-shefit-te-aki- se-terhiqet-nga-aktakuza-kunder-driton-gashit-per-keqperdorim-te-pozites-zyrtare/) 140 For more information regarding all cases and similar ones of prosecutors’ indictment withdrawals, visit the website “Oath for Justice” - “www.betimiperdrejtesi.com” 141 “Prosecutor withdraws from prosecution in the case against the forest technician who was accused of abusing official position”. Oath for Justice. November 27, 2018 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokurori-heq-dore-nga-ndjekja-penale-ndaj-teknikut-te-pyjeve-qe-akuzohej-per- keqperdorim-pozite/) “The trial against Zana Kotorri and others, prosecutor withdraws from prosecution on two criminal offences, requests punishment on receiving bribe charges”. Oath for Justice. November 2, 2018 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/gjykimi-ndaj-zana-kotorrit-dhe-te-tjerave-prokurori-heq-dore-nga-ndjekja-penale- per-dy-vepra-kerkon-denim-per-marrje-ryshfeti/) “Absolute statutory limitation is reached, prosecution withdraws from prosecution against former Mayor of Dragash”. Oath for Justice. October 5, 2018 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/arrihet-parashkrimi- absolut-prokuroria-heq-dore-nga-ndjekja-penale-ndaj-ish-kryetarit-te-dragashit/) “Prosecutor withdraws from indictment against former Police Commander in the north, the trail continues against hi former deputy”. Oath for Justice. August 29, 2018 (Follow link

77 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 them, on corruption charges, but that in the end prosecutors have withdrawn the indictments, without adequate reasoning.

https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokurori-terhiqet-nga-aktakuza-ndaj-ish-komandantit-policor-ne-veri-gjykimi- vazhdon-per-ish-zevendesin-e- tij/?fbclid=IëAR0IJ4v6q8jYG4p2etgUomYërb8YS03uh83YhhictZ7SDgt7lC92hBKozC4) “13 years after the indictment was filed, the prosecution withdraws from prosecution against the accused of corruption charges”. Oath for Justice. July 18, 2018 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/13-vjet-pas- ngritjes-se-aktakuzes-prokuroria-heq-dore-nga-ndjekja-penale-ndaj-te-akuzuarit-per-korrupsion/) “Prosecution withdraws from prosecution against one of the accused in Kohler case, requests punishment for two others, whereas the defense requires their acquittal”. Oath for Justice. May 22, 2018 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokuroria-heq-dore-nga-ndjekja-penale-per-nje-te-akuzuar-ne-rastin-kohler- kerkon-denimin-e-dy-te-tjereve-derisa-mbrojtja-kerkon-lirimin-e-tyre/) “Rejection judgement against former Mayor of Kllokot, after the prosecutor withdraws the indictment”. Oath for Justice. May 3, 2018 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/aktgjykim-refuzues-ndaj-ish-zyrtarit-te- komunes-se-kllokotit-pasi-prokurori-terhiqet-nga-aktakuza/) “Rejection judgement against civil service officials in the Peja Municipality, two others are convicted on suspended punishment”. Oath for Justice. April 26, 2018 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/aktgjykim- refuzues-ndaj-zyrtareve-te-gjendjes-civile-ne-komunen-e-pejes-dy-te-tjeret-denohen-me-kusht/) “Prosecution withdraws from prosecution after understanding that for the same case there is a final judgement”. Oath for Justice. April 21, 2018 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokuroria-terhiqet-nga- aktakuza-pasi-kupton-qe-per-te-njejten-ceshtje-tash-ka-nje-vendim-te-formes-se- prere/?fbclid=IëAR2IicTZYxtMëqCJg241n1l7djvyn2_L0XdOK80Njpb5Fp1xnTY9GDFL31Y) “The case of the accused of corruption, the prosecutor withdraws from prosecution on one of the criminal charges”. Oath for Justice. November 2, 2017 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/rasti-i-te-akuzuarit- per-korrupsion-prokurori-terhiqet-nga-ndjekja-per-njeren-nga-veprat-penale/) “Two times is found guilty, the former public attorney is acquitted from charges in the third time”. Oath for Justice. May 12, 2017 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/ishte-shpallur-dy-here-fajtor-ish-avokati- publik-ne-kacanik-heren-e-trete-lirohet-nga-akuza/) “After 4 years of adjudication, prosecutor Arben Kadriu withdraws the indictment against the forest guardian”. Oath for Justice. October 10, 2016 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/pas-4-vite-gjykimi-prokurori- arben-kadriu-terhiqet-nga-aktakuza-ndaj-rojes-se- pyllit/?fbclid=IëAR05Uq9xkM61cv0xMxojDPah09ORyT3mTvËHXAiKfrcNisxO2BDlvNIOJsk) “After finishing the Evidentiary Proceedings, the prosecutor withdraws the indictment”. Oath for Justice. August 1, 2016 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/pas-perfundimit-te-procedures-se-provave-prokurori- terhiqet-nga-aktakuza/?fbclid=IëAR1RffhjEPUazPu2m8dSg9aiJjoKFTTmhx5UKvj7KYBp9g-9eCzaolSStQo) “Absolute statutory limitation period is reached, prosecution withdraws from prosecution against the police officers accused of bribery”. Oath for Justice. July 27, 2016 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/arrihet- parashkrimi-absolut-prokuroria-heq-dore-nga-ndjekja-penale-kunder-policeve-te-akuzuar-per-ryshfet/) “Prosecution withdraws from criminal prosecution against the accused of abusing official position”. Oath for Justice. June 7, 2016 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokuroria-terhiqet-nga-ndjekja-penale-kunder- te-akuzuarve-per-keqperdorim-te-pozites-zyrtare/) “Prosecutor withdraws from prosecution on abusing official position charges, requests that former school Principal be punished on receiving bribe charges”. Oath for Justice. June 4, 2016 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokurori-heq-dore-nga-ndjekja-penale-per-keqperdorim-detyre-kerkon-qe-ish- drejtori-i-shkolles-te-denohet-per-marrje-ryshfeti/) “Prosecutor withdraws from prosecution against one of the accused of corruption offences”. Oath for Justice. April 28, 2016 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokurori-heq-dore-nga-ndjekja-penale-per-njeren- nga-te-akuzuarat-per-korrupsion/) “Prosecutor withdraws from prosecution against Pren Krasniqi, the trial continues against Azem Bajrami charged of receiving bribe”. Oath for Justice. April 6, 2016 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokurori- heq-dore-nga-ndjekja-penale-e-pren-krasniqit-vazhdon-gjykimi-ndaj-azem-bajramit-per-marrje-ryshfeti) “Ahmet Shehu accused of corruption is acquitted of charge”. Oath for Justice. March 21, 2016 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/lirohet-nga-akuza-ahmet-shehu-i-akuzuar-per-korrupsion/)

78

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

1. Treating KJC and KPC as “departments” of the MoJ

Minister of Justice, Abelard Tahiri, on behalf of the cooperation with the KJC and KPC, has exceeded his powers in the meetings he has conducted with both councils. Moreover, Minister Tahiri was also part of a closed meeting between the KJC and KPC, a meeting which is explained in the following pages of this report.

During the meetings with the employees of the judicial and prosecutorial administration, when the latter were in strike, the Minister of Justice, Abelard Tahiri, was present, together with the head of the KJC, Nehat Idrizi142. With both heads of the councils, Tahiri held a meeting in the Basic Court of Pristina143, where they met with Specialized Prosecutor form the Special Prosecutor Office, Jack Smith144, and together were part of the inauguration ceremony of the implementation of the ICT/SMIL145 Project. But there were also other meetings, that created the perception that the Ministry of Justice is part of the judicial system rather than the executive system, or vice versa, that the KJC and KPC are part of the MoJ.

Debating on the veterans’ indictment, Minister Tahiri promised that this indictment would not remain in the drawers of the prosecution. He had stated that he would act to the extent that his powers allowed him to act.146

In a TV interview on Radio Television of Kosovo, Tahiri described these meetings as normal, because he was Minister of Justice.147

KLI considers “cooperation” as very disturbing. The cooperation between the KJC and KPC on one hand, and the MoJ on the other hand, should be in the areas in which these institutions should coordinate the agenda, such as legislative initiatives, working groups or areas concerned with the drafting of policies in the justice sector, where the Ministry of Justice is competent.

The Constitution of Kosovo clearly divides the powers, into legislative, executive and judicial power. Judicial power is independent from two other powers and this independence must be protected.

142 “Minister of Justice and Head of KJC request the strike to stop, unionists say it will continue (Video)”. Oath for Justice. July 10, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/ministri-i-drejtesise-dhe-kryesuesi-i-kgjk- se-kerkojne-nderprerjen-e-greves-sindikalistet-thone-se-ajo-do-te-vazhdoje/) 143 “Tahiri: The independence of the judiciary, backbone of democratic state building”. Telegrafi.com. November 3, 2017. (Follow link https://telegrafi.com/tahiri-pavaresia-e-gjyqesorit-shtylle-e-shtetndertimit- demokratik) 144 “Minister Tahiri met Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith”. Indeksonline.com. October 30, 2018. (Follow link https://indeksonline.net/ministri-tahiri-takoi-prokurorin-e-specializuar-jack-smith) 145 “Joint press release of KJC, KPC and Norvegian Embassy in Pristina”. November 21, 2018. (Follow link http://www.gjyqesori-rks.org/sq/kjc/event/index/1755) 146 “Tahiri promises that Veterans’ indictment will not be held in the drawers, calls vetting a must”. Koha.net. August 21, 2018. (Follow link https://www.koha.net/arberi/112483/tahiri-premton-se-aktakuza-per-veteranet- sdo-te-mbetet-ne-sirtar-vettingun-e-quan-te-domosdoshem/). 147“10 minutes”. RTK. March 28, 2018. (Follow link https://ëeb.facebook.com/rtklivecom/videos/10155952694023859/UzpfSTExODY4MzMëMTA6MTAyMTU4 ODE3NzgzMzU4MjA/?q=ehat%20miftaraj%20besart%20galica%20abelard%20tahiri&epa=SEARCH_BOX.

79 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Members of the Assembly of Kosovo, the Government or the Minister of Justice, Abelard Tahiri himself, should consider their competencies and should not undertake actions that undermine the independence of the judicial and prosecutorial system. Moreover, both the legislative and the executive should avoid situations that can be perceived in public as an interference in the independence of the judicial and prosecutorial system. On the other hand, the KJC and KPC should be cautious and avoid such meetings in order to avoid eventual interference and avoid the public perception that executive system interferes in judiciary. Typical example of this, is the promise of Minister Tahiri, who had stated that veterans’ indictment will not remain in the prosecution office’s drawers, to the extent that his powers allowed him to act. The Minister of Justice should bear in mind that according to the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and applicable laws, he has not even a competence in this regard. Furthermore, such a public statement, KLI considers that easily can be perceived as an interference in the work of judiciary, despite the fact that Tahiri had stated that this was not his purpose. d. Fighting corruption without judicial control

The Criminal Procedure Code provides the state prosecutor with discretion regarding the initiation of investigation or prosecution of the criminal offence. KLI throughout the monitoring process of corruption cases but also characteristic criminal offences, has found that a large number of cases reported to the police or prosecution offices belonging to the preliminary investigation stage or the investigation stage are closed by the prosecution without any judicial control.

In the last three years (2016, 2017, 2018) 889 cases with 1553 individuals were closed in the preliminary investigation stage, without going through judicial control. While, during the same time period, SP closed off cases of preliminary investigation and criminal investigation against 1794 individuals who have been reported on allegations of corruption offences. Of them, against 1006 individuals, prosecutors have dismissed criminal reports, whereas against 788 individuals have terminated investigations.

Judicial control in cases of termination of investigations and dismissal of criminal reports based on the applicable law in Kosovo, does not exist at all. The prosecutor notifies the court only regarding the termination of the investigation, while the judge has no control or competence to assess whether the prosecutor’s decision is grounded, or if the proof and evidence gathered are sufficient to proceed with a trial. In cases of criminal report dismissal, the court does not receive any notification regarding the closure of the case. Against the decision of the state prosecutor is not allowed to appeal, either from the submitter of the criminal appeal or the injured party.

Moreover, the Criminal Procedure Code does not allow a private lawsuit or a subsidiary lawsuit, since the Criminal Code does not provide any criminal offence, which is prosecuted under private lawsuit. Applicable legislation in Kosovo does not allow to appeal prosecutor’s decisions in cases of dismissal of criminal report or in cases of terminating investigations. In

80 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 this regard, the prosecutor’s decision to close cases in this stage of criminal proceedings is final.

Such an approach created by the Criminal Procedure Code contradicts the Constitution of Kosovo, as well as other international acts that guarantee and promote human rights and freedoms.

According to the European Convention on Human Rights and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the right to appeal and the right of access to court falls within the framework of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Kosovo Constitution guarantees that fundamental human rights and freedoms are inseparable, inalienable and inviolable and are the foundation of the legal order of the Republic of Kosovo. Everyone has the right to judicial protection in case of violation or denial of any rights guaranteed by this Constitution or by law, as well as the right to effective legal remedies if it is found that such a right has been violated.

From the analysis of 100 corruption cases closed by the Prosecution Office, only by a decision to terminate the investigation or a decision to dismiss the criminal report, it turns out that the average time of handling these 100 corruption cases, since filing the criminal report until the dismissal of the criminal report or the termination of the investigation is 1,180 days or approximately three years. The corruption case, which was handled in the fastest time took 21 days from receiving the criminal report to the dismissal of the criminal report.148 While, the corruption case, which was handled in the longest time, took 5415 days or 15 years.

The case that was finished in a record time in circumstances of the efficiency of the prosecutorial system, results to be the case of preliminary investigations regarding allegations of the forged file of Aleksandër Lumezi’s bar exam, who as Chief State Prosecutor belongs to high-profile cases. The case of Alexandër Lumezi’s file was filed on October 25, 2017 and closed within 21 days, respectively on November 14, 2017. While the case against two low- profile officials was filed on October 10, 2001 and closed after 5415 days, or near 15 years.

148 Ruling to dismiss criminal report on the case of Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi.

81

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

1180 DAYS = 3 YEARS (The average of case handling until dismissal/termination) 15 YEARS (The file of two officials) (low profile) 21 DAYS (Aleksandër Lumezi's File) (high profile)

Graph 11 – The average of case handling, based on 100 analyzed cases by KLI.

e.! Failures to respect the Tracking Mechanism KLI since the beginning of systematic monitoring of the prosecutorial system has provided KPC’s Tracking Mechanism data. Constantly there have been identified cases registered in delay, thus creating reasonable grounds of suspicion that using unregistered cases in this mechanism, prosecutors or staff have abused their position and the case information in relation to third parties.

In this regard, prosecutors, Chief Prosecutors and KPC have repeatedly failed to ensure observance of the Tracking Mechanism, which enables the scanning of the situation regarding individual performance and system’s performance in relation to the efficiency of case handling.

The delayed registration of corruption cases in the Tracking Mechanism by prosecutors has constantly been raised as a concern by KLI, because this mechanism aims at harmonizing statistical reports between the SP and law enforcement agencies in Kosovo. Also, this mechanism serves as an important tool for prosecution offices to be informed regarding the number of corruption cases in each prosecution office. Based on this information, the KPC

("! Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 has the opportunity to make adequate policies to implement constitutional and legal obligations in the persecution of perpetrators of criminal offences.

Failure to respect this mechanism generates major implications for the prosecutorial system and the justice system, preventing the identification of the real situation of corruption cases in the prosecutorial system and preventing the development of adequate policies in the fight against criminal corruption offences. Lack of accountability is the key factor that prevents efficient implementation of obligations to comply with the Tracking Mechanism rules. KPC issued decisions to hold responsible all those who failed to respect the Tracking Mechanism, but the decisions have remained unimplemented since none of the Chief Prosecutors nor the National Coordinator have reported regarding the imposition of measures against responsible individuals. f. Delays to proceed corruption indictments by prosecutors

KLI during the monitoring process of corruption cases in prosecution offices and the court, has noted the phenomenon of late submission of indictments to the court by prosecutors. KLI has identified dozens of such cases in all courts of Kosovo.

One of the cases with the largest delay is the case in BP in Pristina (Branch in Podujeva). The indictment PP.no. 600-14/2006, has been found to have been submitted to the court with a delay of 400 days since the date the indictment was filed by the prosecutor.

Prosecutors are required to submit the indictment to the Court the moment they compile it. On the contrary, the allegations of abusing official position by prosecutors and prosecution staff are rightly raised. The ODC has conducted preliminary investigations into these KLI findings but has never informed the public regarding the final results.149 g. Filing unprofessional indictments and the failure of prosecutors in court

KLI throughout the monitoring process of corruption cases court hearings, in many cases has found that state prosecutors are accused either by judges, defense lawyers or defendants, on the grounds that their indictments are non-professional150, not evidence-based151, filed

149 Miftaraj E. and Musliu B. “Corruption Sea in Kosovo: Catching small fish, while big fish go free”. Kosovo Law Institute. Pristina. March 2017. Page 2. (Follow link https://kli-ks.org/deti-i-korrupsionit-ne-kosove- peshqit-e-vegjel-kapen-te-medhenjte-lihen-te-lire/ ) 150 Hamdi Ibrahimi, judge on the Serious Department in the Basic Court in Pristina: Prosecution stayed more than 10 years in this case, with only one evidence which did not prove there are elements of the criminal offence, whereas he adds that he thought that during the trial the prosecution will propose any other expertise. “This has been an interesting case, where the prosecution stayed besides the indictment by only one evidence, which did not manifest any element of the criminal offence. A really special case of prosecution where an individual is prosecuted without any evidence, such a case must not happen in the future”, judge Ibrahimi had stated while reasoning the judgement.(Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/rrezimi-i-aktakuzes-me-vetem- nje-prove-gjykatesi-hamdi-ibrahimi-i-pergjigjet-reagimit-te-prokurorise-se-shtetit/) 151 Besnik Berisha attorney at law, defensive counsel of the accused Gorani, stated that it is really unfortunate that Mekaj was deprived of the right to act as a President of the Court and advance professionally. According to him, this is a lecture to the prosecution to not file indictments that are not evidence grounded. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/ish-kryetari-i-apelit-salih-mekaj-lirohet-nga-te-gjitha-akuzat/)

83

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

without using all the possibilities allowed by the Criminal Procedure Code152, and in certain cases even persecutory.

Targeted case against Naser Osmani, Member of the Parliament of the Assembly of Kosovo and others, begun based on the criminal report filed by the Kosovo Police on April 28, 2014. The SPRK on April 30, 2014 issued a decision to initiate investigative stage, whereas this Prosecution on February 16, 2016 filed an indictment to the BC in Pristina.

Based on the indictment filed by the SPRK, the accused Naser Osmani, as deputy chairman of the PAK Board of Directors, along with other PAK members were accused of violating employees’ rights and have harmed the budget of Kosovo in the amount of 5.4 million Eur. At the hearing of April 4, 2016, while Special Prosecutor Admir Shala read the charges in indictment, Naser Osmani and Bahri Shabani, members of the Board of Directors of the PAK, did not plead regarding guiltiness, on the grounds that all members of the board should be present.153 The main trial regarding this case was held on July 12, 2017.

After 23 court hearings, five of which had failed to be held, and almost 3 years after the indictment filing, on February 8, 2019, member of the parliament Naser Osmani and other accused in the case known as “FAN”, Melita Ymeraga, Adrian Kelmendi, Bahri Shabani, Shkelzen Lluka and Naim Avdiu were found not guilty on the criminal charge of abusing official position.

The court in this case, convicted only one accused. Agim Deshishku was found guilty by the Basic Court in Pristina and against him was imposed a sentence of 1 year and 8 months of imprisonment, including the time spent in detention on remand and house detention. Also, according to the judgment announced by Judge Shashivar Hoti, the accused Agim Deshishku was forced to compensate the Tax Administration of Kosovo (TAK) for damages of 53,807.46 Euro, as well as to pay the scheduled amount of 300 Euro. Meanwhile, the Kosovo

152 Fatime Dermaku, judge at the Basic Court in Pristina: “It is not important why the provision says, you had the chance to question all these witnesses, the defendant, the injured party, but you didn’t even try to do so. You filed an indictment based only on one statement”. “Prosecutor, you are just wishing to delay the process infinitely, take this, take that, take them and finish the investigations in the prosecution office”, responded the judge, who also added that she must protect the rights of all parties to the procedure, including the accused when he/she has no lawyer. “The Court is here to protect human rights, it is the Convention on fair and reasonable trial and I’m here to respect the Convention and the Code”, the judge stated. Regarding these statements, the judge said that is very pleased that a court monitor from “Oath for Justice” was present, because, according to her, the court hearing is open to public, and it is good to be seen how the procedure goes in our courts. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/keni-ngrite-aktakuze-me-nje-deklarate-te-vetme-tensione-ne-seance-midis- prokurores-dhe-gjykateses/)

153 “The trial starts, Naser Osmani and others regarding the PAK case plead not guilty”. Oath for Justice. April 4, 2016. (Follow link http://betimiperdrejtesi.com/fillon-gjykimi-naser-osmani-dhe-te-tjeret-ne-rastin-e-akp-se- deklarohen-te-pafajshem/

84 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Trust Agency (KTA) was instructed in a civil dispute. According to the judgement, the prosecutor’s request for confiscation of the “FAN” company was also rejected.154

Case “Z-mobile”, where suspects are Agron Mustafa, former Director of PTK and two others, this is a targeted case. On December 22, 2016, the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor, after several media publications, submitted the case PPN.nr.236/16, requesting from the Special Prosecution to deal with the dispute between PTK and “Z-mobile”, in the arbitration process, a dispute that PTK had already lost, thus forcing it to meet the obligation in the amount of 32,856,407.28 euro to the benefit of Z-mobile. After the SPRK had initiated the investigation, the same, on August 17, 2018, filed an indictment against the Director of PTK Agron Mustafa, former Director of PTK Ejup Qerimi and against the Chairman of the Board of Directors of PTK Rexhë Gjonbalaj, charging them of “abusing official position”, a criminal offence provided by Article 422 of the CCRK.

The initial hearing regarding this case was assigned on September 27, 2018.155 At the second hearing that has been scheduled on November 7, 2018, the accused requested this indictment to be dismissed.156 Whereas, on December 7, 2018, judge Lutfi Shala issued a ruling by which he dismissed the indictment, because, according to him, it was not proven that the accused had committed the criminal offence they were charged with. Although the Special Prosecution had alleged that the three accused caused the budget of the Republic of Kosovo about 30,000,000.00 Euro damage, according to the court, the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the well-grounded suspicion that the defendants had committed a criminal offence.157 Following the SPRK’s appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld this appeal and amended the first instance judgement, requesting from the first instance court to appoint a court hearing.158

Case Salih Mekaj, President of the Court of Appeals, targeted case. On May 31, 2016, the SPRK filed an indictment against the former President of the Court of Appeals and member of the KJC, Salih Mekaj, for the criminal offence “abusing official position or

154 “Member of the Parliament Naser Osmani and others are found not guilty on charges of abusing official position, Agim Deshishku is found guilty”. Oath for Justice. February 2, 2019 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/deputeti-naser-osmani-dhe-te-tjeret-shpallen-te-pafajshem-per-keqperdorim- pozite-denohet-agim-deshishku/) 155 “Agron Mustafa and others plead not guilty regarding the “Z-Mobile” case”. Oath for Justice. September 27, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/agron-mustafa-dhe-te-tjeret-deklarohen-te-pafajshem-per- rastin-e-z-mobile/ 156 “Agron Mustafa and two others request the dismissal of the indictment regarding the “Z-Mobile” case”. Oath for Justice. November 7, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/agron-mustafa-dhe-dy-te-tjeret- kerkojne-hudhjen-e-aktakuzes-per-rastin-z-mobile/ 157 “The indictment against Agron Mustafa and others regarding “Z-Mobile” case is dismissed”. Oath for Justice. December 18, 2018 ( Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/hudhet-poshte-aktakuza-ndaj-agron- mustafes-dhe-te-tjereve-ne-rastin-e-z-mobile/ ) 158 “The Court of Appeals decides that Agron Mustafa and other former directors of Kosovo Telecom should be adjudicated regarding “Z-Mobile” case”. Oath for Justice. February 4, 2019 (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/apeli-vendos-qe-agron-mustafa-dhe-ish-drejtuesit-tjere-te-telekomit-te-kosoves-te- gjykohen-per-rastin-z-mobile/ )

85 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 authority”. In the case against Salih Mekaj, the initial hearing has been scheduled with a delay of five months from the day the indictment had been filed, respectively on October 20, 2016.

The court hearing of October 20, 2016 has been postponed due to the absence of the accused Mentor Seferaj, who has been in detention on remand. Judge Shashivar Hoti, has informed the parties that they have sent the invitation to the accused Mentor Seferaj, but they have not received any response. Defense attorney of Vlora Gorani, Besnik Berisha, at this court hearing, requested from the court the exclusion of the public in this case and the non- publication of photographs. His request has been joined by the defense attorney of the accused Salih Mekaj, Ramë Gashi. The prosecutor of this case, Drita Hajdari, has also agreed to exclude the public. On this occasion, the court based on Article 294 of the CPCK decided that the main trial for the case in question be closed to the public.159 This judicial proceeding has been a targeted case for visa liberalization but has been kept away from the eyes of the public because of the court’s decision to close it to media and public. Whereas, during the main trial, prosecutor Drita Hajdari had re-qualified the criminal offence against Mekaj, from “abusing official position” to “trading in influence”. The Court, on May 28, 2018, announced the judgement based on which the accused has been acquitted of all charges.160 The first instance judgement has also been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which on October 23, had definitively acquitted Mekaj and others of all the charges.161

Dissatisfied with the first and second instance decisions, the prosecution alleging that the judiciary did not act right when it acquitted Mekaj and others, with a request for protection of legality addressed to the Supreme Court, but this court assessed the decisions of the lower judicial levels as fair.162

Another case where the prosecution failed to defend its indictment in the court, is related to former official of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Valdrin Lluka, who is currently Minister of Economic Development. On October 27, 2016, BP in Pristina filed an indictment against Valdrin Lluka and Eliana Naka, after claiming that while they have been working as officials at the Ministry of Trade and Industry, have provided financial support to the Non- Governmental Organization “Jakova Innovation Center” directed by Naka, while it was founded by Lluka.

159 “The trial against former President of the Court of Appeals and three other accused is postponed, the public gets excluded”. Oath for Justice. October 20, 2016. (Follow link http://betimiperdrejtesi.com/shtyhet-gjykimi- ndaj-ish-kryetarit-te-gjykates-se-apelit-salih-mekaj-dhe-tre-te-akuzuarve-tjere-perjashtohet-publiku/ ) 160 “Former President of the Court of Appeals, Salih Mekaj is acquitted of all charges (Video)”. Oath for Justice. May 28, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/ish-kryetari-i-apelit-salih-mekaj-lirohet-nga- te-gjitha-akuzat/ ) 161“The Court of Appeals affirms the innocence of its former President Salih Mekaj and three others”. Oath for Justice. November 23, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/gjykata-e-apelit-verteton-pafajesine-e- ish-kryetarit-te-saj-salih-mekaj-dhe-tre-te-tjereve/ ) 162 “The Supreme Court affirms the innocence of Mekaj”. Koha.net. January 22, 2019. (Follow link https://www.koha.net/arberi/140997/edhe-supremja-konfirmon-pafajesine-e-mekajt/)

86 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

The initial hearing was held on January 26, 2017, while the second hearing has been held on March 3, 2017, when both the accused requested that the indictment be dismissed, claiming that it is not based on evidence.163

After the indictment was confirmed, the main trial was scheduled by the presiding judge Hamdi Ibrahimi. On July 23, 2018, the main trial has been held and completed, when the accused also presented their defense.164 The court on July 23, 2018 had announced the judgement, declaring Lluka innocent, because as said, the first instance had not proven that he had committed the criminal offence of “conflict of interest”, whereas for this criminal offence the accused Eliana Naka had been found guilty, and had been punished to a fine in the mount of 7,000 Euro.165

The Court of Appeals on October 10, 2018 affirmed the judgement of acquittal of the current Minister of Economic Development, Valdrin Lluka, who was accused of conflict of interest. Whereas, for the other accused Eliana Naka, the second instance court approved her defense counsel’s appeal, and annulled the judgement of the Basic Court and returned the case for retrial.166

Case Abit Kastrati – 11 years of prosecution based on only one evidence. On October 10, 2007, the Kosovo Police had filed a criminal report against Abit Kastrati, Shpresa Spahiu and Vehbi Azemi, after allegations of “misappropriation in office”.

The prosecution needed nearly seven years to issue a decision to initiate investigative stage, and beyond any precedent, nearly 10 years after the criminal report, prosecutor Dulina Hamiti filed an indictment against Abit Kastrati, charging him with the criminal offence of “misappropriation in office”, provided by Article 340 of the Provisional Criminal Code of Kosovo.

Although for the accused Abit Kastrati the proceedings at the prosecution office have been ongoing for about 10 years, he had to wait for more than a year until the court held the initial hearing on July 20, 2017, where Kastrati pleaded not guilty.

Since this indictment has been confirmed by the first instance, as well as by the second instance, on February 22, 2018, the main trial started and was completed, as the prosecution

163 “In the case against MTI’s officials accused of conflict of interest, the defense requests the dismissal of the indictment”. Oath for Justice. March 3, 2017. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/ne-rastin-ndaj- zyrtareve-te-mti-se-te-akuzuar-per-konflikt-interesi-mbrojtja-kerkon-hudhjen-e-aktakuzes/ ) 164 “Valdrin Lluka says that he didn’t thought that the action of which is being charged could have caused conflict of interest”. Oath for Justice. July 20, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/valdrin-lluka- thote-se-nuk-e-ka-menduar-se-veprimi-per-te-cilin-akuzohet-mund-te-shkaktoj-konflikt-interesi/) 165 “Valdrin Lluka is acquitted of the charge of conflict of interest”. Oath for Justice. 23 July 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/valdrin-lluka-lirohet-nga-akuza-per-konflikt-interesi/ 166 “The Court of Appeals finally acquits Minister Valdrin Lluka of conflict of interest charges, returns for retrial the case against former Secretary of MTI”. Oath for Justice. December 20, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/apeli-e-liron-perfundimisht-nga-akuza-per-konflikt-interesi-ministrin-valdrin- lluka-e-kthen-ne-rigjykim-rastin-e-ish-sekretares-se-mti-se/)

87 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 presented only one evidence, a record of the firm dated June 8, 2007, of the commission of three members of NTSH “Urata”, whereby it is proved that the handover of an excavator has been completed by their former worker.167 The following day, on February 23, 2018, the court announced the judgement, based on which Kastrati was acquitted, while Judge Ibrahimi described the prosecution’s indictment as an unusual case, where the prosecution holds a person with only one evidence, which does not prove any claim of the prosecution.

The prosecution submitted an appeal against Ibrahimi’s judgement, but the second instance rejected that appeal, thus affirming the first instance judgement.168 h. The statutory limitation of corruption cases

The prosecutorial and judicial system in Kosovo continues to face the problem of statutory limitation, which has also affected a large number of corruption cases.

KLI monitors/researchers have reported repeatedly on corruption cases, which have reached the statutory limitation period of prosecution whether is relative or absolute statutory limitation, both in the prosecution offices and courts. The latter, in accordance with the law, have announced rejection judgments in cases of absolute or relative statutory limitation of prosecution in corruption cases.

In the past three years, KLI has identified 78 cases that have reached statutory limitation period in the prosecution offices and basic courts. In all these cases, ex officio, the ODC initiated disciplinary investigative procedures based on the KLI’s findings.

Both in the prosecution and in the courts, many corruption cases have been held in drawers for decades, staying there for years after reaching statutory limitation period. It is worth pointing out two of the most scandalous cases, which prove that judges, in certain cases, do not prioritize corruption cases, as they remain for years in drawers, without being handled.

• 1st Case: “After 15 years, because of the statutory limitation of the case, the defendants are acquitted of misappropriation in office”

On July 15, 2016, the Basic Court in Mitrovica announced a rejection judgment against Vojislav Mihajlovic and Ljuban Milosavljevic169, who were charged of misappropriation in

167 “The prosecution requires the punishment of the accused of misappropriation of the excavator, the defense requires its acquittal”. Oath for Justice. February 22, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/prokuroria-kerkon-dënimin-e-te-akuzuarit-per-pervetesimin-e-ekskavatorit- mbrojtja-lirimin-e-tij/ )

168 “The Court of Appeals affirms the judgement that dismissed the one evidence based indictment, that brought the State Prosecutor’s and KJC’s reaction”. Oath for Justice. June 22, 2018. (Follow link https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/apeli-verteton-aktgjykimin-qe-rrezoi-aktakuzen-me-vetem-nje-prove-qe-solli- reagimin-e-prokurorit-te-shtetit-dhe-te-kgjk-se/)

169 “After 15 years, because of statutory limitation, the accused of misappropriation in office”. Oath for Justice, July, 15 2016. (Follow link: https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/pas-15-vitesh-per-shkak-te-parashkrimit-te-lendes- shpallen-te-pafajshem-te-akuzuarit-per-pervetesim-detyre/)

88 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 office in 2001, on the grounds that the offence had reached the statutory limitation period. In the reasoning of the judgement, it was stated that since the criminal offence was committed in 2001, the court has necessarily applied the provisions of the new law, which is more favorable to the defendants.

• 2nd Case: “The case against two customs’ officers charged of corruption reaches statutory limitation period, no court hearing has been held since filing the indictment in 2013” On December 18, 2018, at the initial hearing held against Mustafë Desku and Shukrie Muqolli-Murati170, accused of having abused the official position as Customs officers, the Basic Court in Pristina rendered a rejection judgment because the offence had reached the statutory limitation period.

In this case, where Real Rama and Naman Pacolli were also accused of “fraudulent import and excise tax evasion”, no court hearing was held since the indictment was filed on May 17, 2013.

Otherwise, among the persons against whom a rejection judgment was announced due to the statutory limitation of the criminal offence is the case of former mayor of Dragash Municipality, Salim Jenuzi171 and former judge, now lawyer Shemsije Sheholli.172 i. Failure to prosecute cases published by media and civil society

Journalists from various media in Kosovo and civil society representatives have debated and reported allegations of numerous violations of law by certain public officials. Among these reports on violations of the law, in not so rare cases are reported actions that fall into the incriminating sphere, introducing elements of criminal offences that fall into the corruption chapter. Reporting work of these civil society representatives and media in most cases ends with the publication of their reports, due to the negligence of the prosecution authorities, which do not follow traces to detect corruption.

By the Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi’s decision, on June 17, 2015, was established the Committee for monitoring and tracking daily and verifying allegations of suspected cases of organized crime and corruption, published through electronic media and

170“The case against two customs’ officers accused of corruption reaches statutory limitation period, no court hearing has been held since filing the indictment in 2013”. Oath for Justice. December 18, 2018. (Follow link: https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/parashkruhet-lenda-ndaj-dy-doganiereve-te-akuzuar-per-korrupsion-nuk-mbahet- asnje-seance-qe-nga-ngritja-e-aktakuzes-me-2013/)

171“Rejection judgement against former Mayor of Dragash, he is found not guilty for occupation of real property”. Oath for Justice. October 9, 2018. (Follow link: https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/aktgjykim-refuzues- ndaj-ish-kryetarit-te-dragashit-shpallet-i-pafajshem-i-akuzuari-per-uzurpim-prone/)

172“The case against former judge Shemsije Sheholli reaches statutory limitation period”. Oath for Justice. July 11, 2017. (Follow link: https://betimiperdrejtesi.com/parashkruhet-lenda-penale-ndaj-ish-gjyqtares-shemsije- sheholli/)

89

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 press, complaints of citizens and public appearances of officials of state and public bodies and organizations and non-governmental organizations.

KLI has monitored the work of this committee in terms of actions undertaken, by submitting requests for access to information regarding the work of the Commission in accordance with the Law on Access to Public Documents and the Law on Protection of Personal Data. KLI has repeatedly asked a series of questions about the operation and functioning of this Commission, which have remained unanswered. The lack of transparency of this Commission is extremely disturbing and raises doubts about the functioning of this Commission, according to the decision of the Chief Prosecutor. Moreover, the closure of this Commission, by not providing information about its work, raises doubts as to the fact that this Commission has been established on paper only, whereas reality proves that this Commission is failing to fulfill the obligations arising from the Decision of the Chief State Prosecutor. j. The manipulated file of the bar exam of Chief State Prosecutor

The suspicions raised in public regarding the forgery of the State Prosecutor’s Bar Exam (SP), Aleksandër Lumezi, based on the applicable legislation in Kosovo, enters into high- profile cases. According to this legislation, high profile cases should be handled by the Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo (SPRK), which in this case did not happen. SPRK during all the time the procedures have been conducted in this case, has remained in complete silence. Such an approach to the public doubts the independence, impartiality and integrity of this prosecution. This case investigated and closed within 21 days in an unlawful manner, should be investigated by the SPRK. Otherwise, this case was led by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, who also is Chief of the Serious Crimes Department in the Basic Prosecution in Pristina.

The whole process of preliminary investigations by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi is unlawful.173 This prosecutor has been privileged since the arrival of Aleksandër Lumezi as the head of the State Prosecution Office, advancing for a very short period of time into being Head of the Serious Crimes Department in the BP in Pristina.

Although this case, according to legal competencies, should have been investigated by the SPRK, Prosecutor Kujtim Munishi has decided to investigate the file of his chief, Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi. But any action taken by Munishi is in violation of the law. He has authorized police investigators to gather information in the preliminary procedure, question witnesses inside and outside the Republic of Kosovo, and seize files without a court decision and all this for a criminal offence, which according to the law applicable in Kosovo had long since reached the statutory limitation period of criminal prosecution. This is prohibited by applicable law in Kosovo, but Munishi has conducted preliminary investigations for a

173 Miftaraj E. and Musliu B. “The manipulated file of Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi”. Kosovo Law Institute. Pristina, November 2017. (Follow link https://kli-ks.org/dosja-e-manipuluar-e-kryeprokurorit-te- shtetit-aleksander-lumezi/ )

90 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 criminal offence that has reached statutory limitation, for which action he should become part of the disciplinary investigative procedures.

Prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, in the specific case, never directed criminal proceedings regarding suspicions of forgery of the bar exam of the Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi, respectively did not undertake investigative actions regarding the suspicion of committing the criminal offence set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 434, which allegedly publicly denounced the Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi. So, prosecutor Munishi, unlawfully investigated a criminal offence, for which he should be subject to investigations, while fully has amnestied any opportunity to investigate his chief, Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi. The latter was publicly denounced as suspected of falsifying the bar exam, so prosecutor Munishi clearly noted that he had amnestied the chief, for reasons that only he could know but which were in violation of the law.

In the preliminary investigations, prosecutor Munishi a priori has amnestied the suspicions that Aleksandër Lumezi has forged the bar exam. The whole investigation was based on the evidence taken of witnesses unlawfully; his investigation had no suspect and seized files without a court order and did not conduct any graphology expertise as well as other expertise which would verify suspicions of forgery in manipulated documents. Closure of the case is based entirely on the testimonies of former Serbian officials assigned in positions at the time of violent measures during 1990s, after the abolition of Kosovo’s autonomy, while the testimony of lawyer Betim Shala proves nothing because it is an assumption, which is not considered an evidence in criminal proceedings.

Prosecutor Munishi did not administer evidence provided by witness Adil Fetahu. He was a member of the Legal Advisory Committee, who interviewed Aleksandër Lumezi in 2000 when he had applied to become a judge and a prosecutor. In the record is written that Aleksandër Lumezi did not have the bar exam. Another record of this Commission points out that in 2000, former UNMIK chief Bernard Kouchner had decreed 31 candidates outside the Commission’s proposals, even if candidates had still not passed the bar exam. None of this evidence, which is stated in the minutes of 2000, was not administered by the Prosecution.

Moreover, it remains unclear how prosecutor Munishi has rushed into closing the case without providing UNMIK and OSCE files, which could clarify whether Aleksandër Lumezi had a bar exam in 2000, and whether Aleksandër Lumezi is one of the 31 candidates decreed without bar exam or if he had it at that critical time. This in judicial precedent is unprecedented, raising doubts that the purpose in this situation was the quick closure of the case and not finding out the truth.

In this preliminary investigation Munishi did not have any suspects, but only witnesses. In Kosovo as a witness were questioned: Sahit Shala, Radislav Dimitrijevic, Aleksandër Lumezi, Riza Smaka, Adil Fetahu, Enver Hasani, Betim Shala and Zymer Krasniqi.

Meanwhile, without a decision to initiate investigative stage and in violation of the Law on International Legal Co-operation, he has taken evidence and witnesses outside the official legal path. In this regard, he has taken as evidence a notarized act of Djordje Aksic, who

91

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 appears to be a former member of the Bar Exam Commission in 1991 and as a former Provincial Secretary at the time of violent measures in Kosovo. Meanwhile, he questioned Miladin Kostic, also a former member of the Bar Exam Commission in 1991.

None of these testimonies does confirm that Lumezi passed the exam, as long as the file is completely manipulated with white spray on Zymer Krasniqi’s file and there has not been conducted any graphology expertise (and other relevant expertise) regarding it.

Doubts raised in public that Aleksandër Lumezi forged the bar exam and the process of preliminary investigations conducted by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi were filled with prejudgments and interferences from politics, the government and the prosecutorial system itself. Minister of Justice Abelard Tahiri has made several statements, prejudging the prosecution’s investigations, stating that they will end in a period of time, thus interfering politically in the conducted investigations.

On the other hand, Kosovo Prosecutorial Council has completely prejudiced any suspicion raised about the forged file of Aleksandër Lumezi’s bar exam, requesting the withdrawal of charges and writings regarding this subject. Similarly, the Kosovo Prosecutors Association (KPA) has also defended their supervisor, and has completely prejudiced the allegations raised about Lumezi’s bar exam.

This case was said to have been monitored by EULEX, who stated that this mission’s prosecutor is satisfied with the independent and impartial investigation. However, the EULEX Mission did not declare whether this is the official position of this mission, or only the position and opinion of the monitoring.

The current investigation into criminal proceedings turns out to be null. In this regard, in order to clarify the truth and to conduct an independent, impartial, fair and professional investigation process, it is recommended that in accordance with the constitutional and legal obligations these public suspicions be investigated by the Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo (SPRK). All legal circumstances to investigate this case by SPRK are met and it is also recommended that the investigation be conducted through the establishment of a team of EULEX prosecutors with US, British and German prosecutors.

KLI has recommended that SPRK demand expertise on all manipulated sprayed documents and other documents alleged of being forged. Until finding the truth regarding this case, KPC should, in accordance with the applicable law, take measures regarding the suspension of the Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi, while the SPRK and the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel should analyze the decision to dismiss the criminal report issued by the prosecutor Munishi, and investigate whether the law and procedures under the applicable legislation have been applied while handling this case.

92

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 k. Contested integrity of the prosecutors and judges regarding benefit of raise of salary

Unlawful decision of the executive power to raise salaries, which has directly impacted on the raise of salaries of judges and prosecutors is the most powerful proof for the contested integrity of stakeholders of the judicial and prosecutorial system.

The game with the judicial power regarding the salaries of judges and prosecutors, has a long history, since the end of the war in Kosovo. The executive branch constantly has created dependence of the judges and prosecutors over executive, who have been widely affected by politics. The latter through the Assembly of Kosovo in 2000, has adopted the Law on Courts and the Law on State Prosecutor, by building a standard of leveling judges and prosecutors’ salaries with the salaries of the executive branch, respectively salaries of the President of the Supreme Court and the Chief State Prosecutor were matched with the salary of the Prime minister of the country, while prosecutors and judges’ salaries were leveled with the ministers’ salaries. This was the first time that an equivalence was created on basic salaries between executive power and judicial power.

KLI who systematically monitors the justice system, but also other local and international organizations, through reports, such as the European Commission report on Kosovo and US State Department’s Report have raised concerns for political impact in the justice system.

As a result of these political impacts in the judicial and prosecutorial power, there was no reaction from the representatives of these powers, on December 2017, when the Government of Kosovo unlawfully through a decision has raised salaries for itself, and consequently for judges and prosecutors.

Unlike judicial and prosecutorial power, which have been beneficiaries of this salary raise, KLI has reacted publicly against Decision No. 4/20, of Haradinaj’s Government adopted on December 20, 2017. Against this decision also reacted the European Union Office in Pristina and other organizations.

Through this decision the salaries of the above-mentioned positions have almost doubled. The salary of the Prime Minister of Kosovo was raised to 2950 euros, while the salary of the Deputy Prime Ministers was raised to the amount of 2500 euro. Salaries of Ministers with this decision have been raised to the amount of 2000 euro. Also, salaries of the President of the Supreme Court and Chief State Prosecutor, were raised to 2950 euro.

This decision of the Government, according to the legal analysis of KLI, has exceeded the powers defined by the Law and the Regulation of Work of the Government, which in none of its provisions defines powers and responsibilities of the Government to set salaries or compensations for the Prime minister or ministers. Based on the Constitution and applicable law in Kosovo, competent to decide regarding salaries of the senior public officials in Kosovo, especially for the position of Prime minister and ministers, is the Assembly of Kosovo. Therefore, this decision is considered unlawful by KLI and a direct arbitrary

93

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 interference to the powers of the Assembly of Kosovo. Decision approved by Haradinaj’s Government, except that it was conducted in violation with applicable law, the same was conducted without proper legal analysis and without assessment or consultation regarding financial impact that this decision involves in the budget of executive and judicial power. Although this decision was unlawful, there was no reaction from the prosecution body-State Prosecutor. Unlike the State Prosecutor, there was a reaction from the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA). According to the ACA, decision regarding salary raise is contradictory with the Criminal Code of Kosovo, respectively Article 424, which stipulates situations of conflict of interest in cases when senior state officials take part personally in an official issue in which he/she or a member of his/her family or any legal person that has to do with him/her, has financial interest. For this situation of conflict of interest, the ACA also executed its mandate, by informing the Government that the decision on salaries represents conflict of interest and that the same cannot be implemented, otherwise this constitutes a criminal offence. For now, ACA is investigating the case of conflict of interest on salaries, while for the same decision “Vetëvendosje” has submitted a criminal report, which is in the SPRK. It is still unknown that which are the actions taken for the investigation of this case by this prosecution office. Although the case seems to be very clear, especially after the opinion expressed by the ACA, as specialized agency for conflict of interest, the prosecution has not given any signs to the public that is acting to prosecute this case.

By not acting until this stage, proves that integrity of the judicial and prosecutorial system is contested because all these stakeholders of judicial and prosecutorial functions are experienced lawyers and after the opinion of the ACA and submission of the criminal report regarding this decision, they should not benefit from this contested decision. Benefiting from an unlawful decision, which tomorrow may create a criminal precedent, while taking care only for personal interest and not for the implementation of the legality, testifies that the integrity of these stakeholders hi really contested.

94

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

XI. Accountability of prosecutors and judges after KLI’s reports

During these years (2016, 2017, 2018) the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) has specially engaged staff of inspectors to handle findings of KLI’s periodical reports.

As a result of KLI’s findings published in seven reports, ODC until now has included over 850 cases in preliminary investigations against prosecutors and judges. Regarding the manner of handling these cases, the ODC has no longer systemized specific data to see the progress of handling these cases. However, for the last time, the ODC has informed that from the KLI’s reports, out of these preliminary investigations’ cases, in disciplinary investigations 25 prosecutors’ cases have been included, where including 17 cases. Of them 9 cases with confirmed disciplinary violations by the ODC have been sent to the Disciplinary Commission of the KPC. Out of the initiated cases from KLI findings, 4 disciplinary investigations are closed with findings, 4 disciplinary investigations are in the procedure of investigation, 39 cases have been rejected, 246 cases have been rejected after preliminary investigation.174 Only out of the report published by KLI on March 2017, the ODC has initiated preliminary investigations in 178 corruption cases handled by prosecutors and judges.175

Regarding the findings presented on KLI’s report “Fighting corruption, priority on paper” published on December 10, 2015, ODC has conducted preliminary investigations for all presented cases (56 cases) and has taken a big number of statements from prosecutors who have been loaded with cases as in the report. It was requested from prosecutors to pronounce regarding KLI’s findings, respectively the ODC’s. After collecting information, reviewing and analyzing them, ODC has considered that, findings should be sent for evaluation at the Commission for Prosecutors Performance Review in the KPC. Such action was conducted by the ODC because findings allege that they are related to the performance of prosecutors at work. As the finding report was sent at the Commission for Prosecutors Performance Review in the KPC, ODC was informed by the Chairman of the KPC that the report was sent for evaluation at the abovementioned Commission.

Regarding findings from the KLI report “Corruption in Kosovo: Fighting or Promoting Corruption” published on April 27, 2016, the ODC conducted preliminary investigations (collection of information regarding 111 cases) for all presented cases and received a large number of declarations by prosecutors (22 declarations) who have been loaded with the cases presented in the report. It was requested by the prosecutors to declare regarding KLI’s

174 Source:Official data of the ODC offered through e-mail for the KLI. December 2017. 175 Source:Former director of the ODC Mr. Zef Prendrecaj in a response in writing through e-mail has informed that only for the two last reports of the KLI, are initiated 257 preliminary investigations in corruption cases treated by prosecutors. “Report IV – Corruption in Kosovo:Fighting or promoting corruption (27.04.2016) Regarding the findings from this report, ODC has conducted preliminary investigations (collection of information of 111 cases) for all cases evidenced and has taken a large number of statements from prosecutors (22 statements) which have been loaded with described cases as in the report. It was requested from prosecutors to declare with the findings of the KLI, respectively the ODC. Report of VII – Corruption in Kosovo: Rhetoric in fighting corruption (27.10.2016) Regarding findings from this report, ODC is undertaking preliminary investigations (collection of information of 146 cases). After the collection of information, reviewing and analyzing them, ODC, will keep you informed with the epilogue of cases and the findings.” KLI interview with Mr. Zef Prendrecaj, Former Director of the ODC. March 2017.

95

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

findings, respectively the ODC’s. Similarly, these cases have been sent for evaluation to the Commission for Prosecutors Performance Review in the KPC.

Regarding KLI’s findings presented in the report “Corruption in Kosovo: Rhetoric in fighting corruption” published on October 27, 2016, the ODC is undertaking preliminary investigations (collecting information on 146 cases). ODC has collected all relevant information, has reviewed and analyzed them, and sent them for evaluation to the Commission for Prosecutors Performance Review in the KPC.

Regarding KLI’s findings presented in the report “Corruption in Kosovo: Sea of corruption in Kosovo” published on March 28, 2017, ODC is undertaking preliminary investigations (collecting information of 283 cases).

Regarding KLI’s findings presented in the report “Fight, persecution or amnesty in the name of fight against corruption?” published on December 21, 2017, ODC is undertaking preliminary investigations (collecting information of 283 cases).

CASES OF INVESTIGATIONS BY THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL INICIATED FROM THE REPORTS OF THE KLI

findings investigation investigations investigations Reports published by KLI investigations investigation procedure Disciplinary Commission Commission Disciplinary Cases included in rejection in included Cases Cases in the deciding phase phase deciding the in Cases Rejection after preliminary preliminary after Rejection Cases included in disciplinary disciplinary in included Cases disciplinary in included Cases Cases included in preliminary preliminary in included Cases Disciplinary investigations in the the in investigations Disciplinary Disciplinary investigations sent to the the to sent investigations Disciplinary Disciplinary investigations closed with with closed investigations Disciplinary Corruption in Kosovo - I – 26 21 14 6 4 4 5 1 Corruption in Kosovo - II – 16 1 1 1 15 1 Corruption in Kosovo - III - 29 29 Corruption in Kosovo-IV - 22 3 2 2 19 2 Fighting corruption in Kosovo, priority on paper 56 56 (10.12.2015) Fighting or promoting corruption (27.04.2016) 111 111 Rhetoric in fighting corruption (27.10.2016) 146 146 “Sea” of Corruption in Kosovo (28.03.2017) 178 178 Fight, persecution or amnesty in the name of fight 283 283 against corruption? (21.12.2017) Total: 867 25 17 9 4 4 39 246 461 Table 21 – Cases of initiated investigations by the ODC from the findings of the report of KLI.

The ODC was constantly challenged in its work on conducting investigations in cases of findings from the KLI’s reports. Leaders of the ODC have constantly assessed that after collecting the data, information and other actions they have undertaken based on the KLI’s findings, they have noticed that the work on similar cases has started to improve (findings in

96 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019 reports) respectively to increase the accountability of prosecutors and judges. For now, the ODC is in process of suppression due to the change of the legal framework for the disciplinary procedure of judges and prosecutors. Officials that are currently leading this office have said they have no selected information on initiated cases of investigations,176 thus preventing the progress of cases initiated by KLI’s reports.

176 KLI has received an official response through e-mail from the Acting Duty of the ODC, Mr. Arianit Salihu. “Office of the Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), informs you that currently we do not have any report of the Kosovo Law Institute Institutit (KLI) at work. Despite that reports of the KLI, have contained a large number of judicial and prosecutorial cases, the ODC initiated them ex officio, has developed preliminary disciplinary investigations by ensuring copies of the relevant files of cases and where it was considered necessary, has ensured also the statement from the stakeholders of judicial and prosecutorial functions. Also, we inform you that the ODC has followed emissions of the “Oath for Justice” or publications on your website (portal Oath for Justice) and where it has considered that a reasonable suspicion exists that a judge or prosecutor, may have been included in possible misconduct, has initiated cases ex officio. In certain cases, the ODC has initiated also disciplinary investigations against the stakeholders of judicial and prosecutorial functions based on informations provided by your platform. The ODC, can not provide you statistical data regarding this issue, as when we initiate cases ex officio, in the database we do not have such a cut of data provided by the KLI and not only.” February 2019.

97

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

XII. Recommendations of KLI

KLI based on the findings during the process of monitoring and evaluation process of handling the fight against corruption, KLI, constantly in these three years, within the three- year project “Strengthening the rule of law” supported by the British Embassy in Kosovo offered specific recommendations on how to implement legal obligations and policies in handling the fight against corruption. Below are presented main recommendations addressed to the justice institutions in these three years (the same repeated recommendations have been removed, which have not been implemented). In this table are presented 117 recommendations, out of which 37 have been implemented, 49 have been partially implemented, while 31 recommendations have not been implemented at all. Furthermore, see the table below.

Nr. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YEAR 2019 Z P X The Government of Kosovo to start implementing the governmental program for initiating constitutional X 1 amendments regarding the vetting process in the judicial, prosecutorial system and Kosovo Police. After the entry into force of the Law on Courts, to start without delay in the establishment of a special P 2 Department at the Basic Court in Pristina for treating cases submitted by the SPRK. The appointment of judges in this department is done in a transparent manner, respecting and implementing P 3 the criteria defined by law. KJC to exercise constitutional and legal powers to protect the independence of the judiciary and individual independence of judges from external interferences, particularly from the decisions of executive regarding the X 4 judicial system in Kosovo. KJC and KPC to begin with the drafting of secondary legislation regarding the implementation of the Law on Disciplinary Responsibility for the Judges and Prosecutors. The process of drafting secondary legislation P should be done transparently and in cooperation with civil society in Kosovo. Secondary legislation to not 5 deviate from the purpose and from the law. KJC in cooperation with KPC and the Academy of Justice to begin with the training of all Presidents of Courts and Chief Prosecutors regarding the implementation of the Law on Disciplinary Responsibility for the P 6 Judges and Prosecutors. KJC and KPC to build unique practices and standards regarding the implementation of the Law on P 7 Disciplinary Responsibility for the Judges and Prosecutors. KPC to exercise constitutional and legal powers to protect the independence of the prosecutorial system and the individual independence of prosecutors from external interferences, particularly from the decisions of X 8 executive power related to the prosecutorial system in Kosovo. KPC to exercise constitutional and legal powers to the Chief State Prosecutor regarding illegal acts in violating the independence of prosecutors to treat criminal cases, with particular emphasis on treating high- X 9 level cases of corruption. KPC to review and annul all the unlawful decisions of the Chief State Prosecutor regarding the building of X 10 unlawful control mechanisms and oversight of high profile cases in Kosovo.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YEAR 2018:

Minister of Justice should develop the cooperation with the KJC and KPC to that field that his powers require cooperation with these two councils. Minister of Justice, regardless of the goals it may have, should understand that the KJC and KPC are independent and sensitive institutions, especially in relation to X executive power, therefore as such should treat and respect them in order to avoid situations when joint public appearances create the opinion that politics is interfering in the independence of the judicial and 11 prosecutorial system.

98 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

KJC and KPC, especially their chairpersons, should avoid meetings without cause with the Ministry of Justice and any other senior official of other powers in order to maintain their credibility and independence X 12 and not further undermine confidence of the public in these two institutions. KJC and KPC to stop accusations and counter-accusations for the failure of the judicial and prosecutorial system in the fight against corruption, but to fulfill their constitutional and legal obligations in terms of X 13 control and oversight of courts and prosecution offices through internal mechanisms. KJC and KPC to take measures to avoid conflict of interest in accordance with the provisions of the Law on X 14 Prevention of Conflict of Interest. KJC to show increased efficiency in meeting legal obligations, especially the adoption of secondary legislation. Also, the KLI recommends that after the entry into force of the new KJC Law and the new Law P 15 on Courts, the KJC should adopt an action plan and set deadlines for the adoption of secondary legislation. KLI recommends to the KJC that with utmost dedication to address the recommendations derived from the X 16 report of the National Audit Office. KLI recommends to the KJC that when issuing sub-legal acts, it is enough to refer only to the legal basis and only in those cases when such authority has been transferred by law and not to refer to the Constitutional Z 17 provisions if there is no legal basis for such a thing. KJC to review the Regulation on the Central System of Criminal Record of Kosovo in the sense of its compliance with the CCRK and the area of access to the statistics of the Central System of Criminal Record Z 18 of the Republic of Kosovo. 19 KJC to publish the Regulation on the Use of Information Technology in the Judicial System. Z KJC to publish all decisions issued by the KJC. Also, the KJC should respect the two languages, and all P 20 decisions should also be published in the Serbian language. KJC to increase transparency in general, particularly to respect the Law on Access to Public Documents, to Z 21 invite the media and civil society at every public meeting. KJC, namely the Performance Evaluation Commission of the KJC, to pay special attention to the performance evaluation process, in such a way that through this process to achieve his goal and not that the P 22 process is done only formally . Following the adoption of the new Law on Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges and Prosecutors, the KJC to P 23 take care that all disciplinary measures required by law are made public. KLI recommends to the KJC to fulfill the legal obligation and to invite the Presidents of Courts to report P 24 before the KJC regarding the administration and management of the respective courts. KJC should make clear the difference between transfer and advancement, and not to advance different judges P 25 on behalf of the transfer. KLI recommends to the KJC, within the statutory legal deadline, to establish new branches foreseen by the new Law on Courts and not to follow the practice where the Law on Courts has already been repealed but X 26 that no new branches of courts have ever been established in Fushe Kosove and Obiliq. KLI recommends to the KJC members to play an active role in Council meetings during the process of policy P 27 making and decision-making in the Council. KLI recommends KPC to show increased efficiency in meeting legal obligations, including the adoption of Z 28 secondary legislation. KLI recommends to the KPC and the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor that the annual report of the State Z 29 Prosecutor to review and approve it within the legal deadline. KLI recommends to the KPC that with utmost dedication to address the recommendations derived from the P 30 report of the National Audit Office. KLI recommends to KPC the implementation in practice of the Regulation on Public Communication and to P 31 hold responsible all officials who do not implement it. 32 KPC to publish all sub-legal acts of the KPC, by respecting also the two languages. X KLI recommends to the KPC that while drafting the Annual Report of the KPC for 2018, do not make an exclusively descriptive report, but to be an analytical report that addresses the problems and challenges that P 33 KPC had during the year 2018. 34 KPC, respectively the Performance Evaluation Commission of the KPC, to carry out this process with care, P

99

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

professionalism and maximum commitment so that this process can achieve its goal and not that this process to be completed only formally . KLI recommends to the KPC to report before the public on the implementation of its objectives defined P 35 specifically and based on measurable indicators every six (6) months. KLI recommends to the KPC to call the Chief Prosecutors of all prosecutions to report regarding the Z 36 management and administration of the respective prosecutions. KLI recommends to the KPC members that while exercising their functions to have an active role, through P 37 participation in discussion and debate during the process of policy making and decision-making in the KPC. KPC to clarify the difference between advancement and transfer, and do not make unlawful advancements in X 38 the name of transfer. Ministry of Justice during the process of amending the Criminal Procedure Code to address the right of legal remedy and access to court in cases of dismissal of criminal reports and decisions related to the cease of P 39 investigations by the applicants of criminal reports, victims of crime and the injured parties. Ministry of Justice, during the process of supplementing amending the Criminal Procedure Code, to address the legal deadlines regarding the treatment of cases in the preliminary procedure, and the treatment of these P cases within the legal deadlines by the State Prosecutor by building the same practice as in criminal reports as 40 well as in special reports. Ministry of Justice, by amending the Criminal Procedure Code, to increase transparency of the judicial and prosecutorial system to offer access to public documents in cases that are closed in the early stages of the X criminal proceedings either through the decision to dismiss the criminal report or through decision on the 41 cease of the investigation. Ministry of Justice, during the process of amending the Criminal Procedure Code, re-view the return of the X 42 Private Claimant and the subsidiary Claimant. Ministry of Justice, during treatment of the abovementioned topics, to base on the obligations that derive P 43 from the Constitution of Kosovo and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Kosovo Judicial Council and the Supreme Court, either through the Academy of Justice or other available mechanisms, to organize training for judges regarding punitive policies, taking as a basis as a guiding Z 44 document the Guideline on Punitive Policies adopted by the Supreme Court on 15 February 2018. Judicial Council and the Prosecutorial Council to urgently address the practice built in courts and prosecutions regarding the postponement of court hearings in corruption cases due to the lack of judges and P 45 prosecutors. Presidents of Courts and Chief Prosecutors of Basic Prosecutions and Special Prosecution Office to increase the level of co-operation and coordination and to avoid postponement situations of court hearings due to the 46 lack of judges and prosecutors. P Presidents of courts to instruct judges to take measures that the Criminal Procedure Code allows, to the parties in criminal proceeding, including prosecutors, witnesses, lawyers, experts who without reason do not 47 participate in court hearings of corruption. Kosovo Prosecutorial Council, to take measures and to oblige the Chief State Prosecutor and Chief Prosecutors of Basic Prosecutions, the Chief Prosecutor of the Special Prosecution and state prosecutors to P offer access to public documents and cooperate with the public and the media in accordance with the legal 48 obligations. Kosovo Prosecutorial Council to establish a working group and to evaluate the work of the Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo and the Basic Prosecution in Gjilan due to the lack of results in the X 49 fight against corruption.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YEAR 2017

KJC to review the possibility that the number of judges in the Department for Serious Crimes in the Basic Court in Pristina to increase in accordance to the number of cases collected in this court, especially with Z 50 regard to corruption cases. 51 KPC is recommended to continue with filling vacancies for prosecutors in the SPRK. Z

100

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Ministry of Justice is recommended to start supplementing amending the Law on Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo regarding the powers and responsibilities of this Prosecution, including reviewing of Z 52 criteria and procedures for the recruitment process and appointment of prosecutors in this Prosecution. Ministry of Justice is recommended to start drafting the Special Law on the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel. Through this law, the accountability of the ODC should be increased, the way of management and administration of this office as well as the fact that the Director of this office should have managerial and Z non-executive character. To consider the possibility for the ODC to enter under the umbrella of the Ministry of Justice, while the independence of the KJC and KPC should be guaranteed in treating with cases submitted 53 by the ODC against judges and prosecutors. KJC is recommended to speed up and finalize the recruitment process and proposal for appointing of 14 Z 54 positions announced for judges and vacant positions for judges. KPC is recommended to speed up and finalize the recruitment process and proposal for appointing of Z 55 positions announced for new prosecutors. Opening of the public debate regarding the beginning of the vetting process in the Police, Prosecution and the Court. The vetting process should include a detailed background verification of current police, prosecutors and judges in Kosovo. Verification should include inclusive debate of all political parties represented in the Z Assembly of Kosovo, upon request that the implementation of the verification process in practice, led by the 56 US, the United Kingdom and Germany. Opening of the public debate regarding the establishment of the Prosecution and the Special Court with powers in fighting organized crime and corruption. The prosecution should have the right to take under its powers at any stage of the proceedings, cases that have started or are in work by Basic Prosecutions or SPRK. The prosecution will have the judicial police, which will act exclusively under the orders of the Prosecution P and will not have any legal obligation to the structure or management of the Kosovo Police. The recruitment of local police officers, prosecutors and judges, with unquestioned personal and professional integrity, to be realized by the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. The Assembly allocates sufficient financial 57 means for the functioning of these mechanisms, independently.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YEAR 2016

The process of reviewing criminal justice in Kosovo, to include the assessment and analysis of at least 200 completed cases of corruption (dismissed criminal reports, rulings for cease of investigations, dismissal of indictments, acquittal judgments, rejection judgments) by the working group experts established by the MoJ. The purpose of assessing and analyzing these completed cases should serve to identify the reasons of the Z

failure of a large number of corruption cases in the police, prosecutions and courts in order to offer adequate solutions that will be recommended for amending the legislation or law enforcement practices by these 58 institutions. During the process of reviewing the criminal justice sector, the MoJ to re-view the return of the subsidiary claimants and to install judicial control at all stages of criminal proceedings. The enormous number of cases of preliminary investigations initiated without a legal basis or closed in a non-transparent manner by the prosecution and without judicial control seriously damages legal certainty and violates human rights and 59 freedoms. (Recommendation of 2017). P Ministry of Justice is in the process of supplement amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The working group in the context of the changes that are being discussed with regard to this recommendation, has proposed the right of appeal within the prosecutorial system, bypassing the judicial control according the 60 proposal of the KLI. KJC to consider the possibility that the number of judges in the Department for Serious Crimes in the Basic Court in Pristina to increases according to the number of cases gathered in this court, particularly the cases of Z 61 corruption. 62 KPC is recommended to continue with filling vacant positions for prosecutors in SPRK. Z Ministry of Justice is recommended to start supplementing amending of the Law on Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo regarding the powers and responsibilities of this prosecution, including re-view of P 63 the criteria and procedures for the recruitment process and the appointment of prosecutors in this Prosecution.

101

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

KJC to review the action plan regarding the treating of corruption cases in the courts. KJC to make a re- assessment of the number of corruption cases in the courts, and to set deadlines related to their treatment in P 64 accordance with legal obligations. KJC to require from the Appeal Court to implement in practice the unification of judicial practices regarding P 65 punitive policy in corruption cases. KJC to oblige the presidents of courts to initiate disciplinary proceedings against prosecutors who without X 66 reason are absent in court hearings of corruption. KJC to require from Presidents of courts and judges to offer access to public documents regarding corruption P 67 cases in accordance with the law in force. KPC in accordance with the obligations that derive from the applicable law to amend, supplement and publish in order to make accessible for the public the Strategic Plan (2016-2018) and the Action Plan for X Increasing the Efficiency of the Prosecutorial System in Fighting Corruption and Economic Crimes, 68 including the Sequestration and Confiscation of Illegal Assets adopted by the KPC on 1 December 2015. KPC to offer access to statistics related to the treatment of targeted cases and informations that do not hinder the process of investigations in these cases, including the results in sequestration and confiscation of illegal P 69 asset in targeted cases. KPC to address urgently the phenomenon of the large number of decisions of dismissal of criminal reports and decisions for cease of investigations in cases of corruption and the failure of indictments in courts for X 70 corruption cases. KPC to address the large number of corruption court hearings annulled due to the lack of prosecutors in court X 71 hearings. KPC to hold responsible the Chief State Prosecutor for the lack of transparency and accountability in relation X 72 to the media and civil society regarding the requests for access to public documents. Chief State Prosecutor, Chief Prosecutor of the SPRK, and Chief Prosecutors of the BP to fulfill legal P 73 obligations regarding requests for access to public documents in the prosecutorial system. Consider and apply in practice the amendment of the Constitution regarding the establishment of a Prosecution and Special Court based on Macedonia's modality. Such an agreement should have consensus P 74 and full support of the largest political parties in Kosovo. Powers and responsibilities of this Prosecution and Special Court shall not under any circumstances interfere P 75 to the powers and responsibilities of the Special Court in The Hague established by the Assembly of Kosovo. The establishment of the Prosecution and the Special Court should be limited at a certain time and for certain criminal offenses that are of interest for the State of Kosovo, and these two institutions should have full P 76 independence from the current institutions, namely KJC, KPC, SP , as well as supremacy to SPRK. KLI recommends to the KPC to re-assess decisions, and to make decisions based on the law and internal acts P 77 of the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council. KPC to urgently treat the phenomenon of the large number of decisions of dismissal of criminal reports and decisions for cease of investigations in the corruption cases and the failure of over 60% of indictments in X 78 courts for corruption cases. 79 BP in Pristina, to treat corruption (information) cases with priority in the PPN register. Z KPC urgently through KJI to organize training for prosecutors regarding the implementation of legal P 80 provisions for seizure and confiscation of assets acquired through criminal offense.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YEAR 2016

The Judicial and Prosecutorial Council during the process of policy drafting regarding the implementation of the laws package for the KJC and the CCK to co-operate and coordinate activities in the processes related to the appointment, re-appointment, transfer, advancement of judges and prosecutors, and processes related to P the appointment of members of the KJC, KPC and respective commissions of both Councils. KJC and KPC to apply unique practices and standards in relation to the abovementioned issues, always based on the 81 specifics and scope that develop two Councils. 82 KJC before the adoption of KJC regulations and internal acts to plan and assess the eventual risk before the P

102 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

decision-making process so that the current practice of supplementing and amending the rules and procedures related to important processes in the judicial system. KJC to fulfill the legal obligations that derive from the basic laws on the judicial system, including the Z 83 adoption of secondary legislation. KLI recommends to the KJC to use the current mechanisms to play a proactive role in monitoring and P 84 oversight of the commissions of the Council, the Secretariat and the Performance Evaluation Unit. KLI recommends to the KJC to prepare a work plan which should have clear objectives regarding the performance evaluation of judges. The KJC should define deadline from three or four years for the P 85 performance evaluation of all judges in Kosovo. 86 KLI recommends to the KPC to review the Regulation on Transfer and Advancement of the State Prosecutors Z 87 KLI recommends to the KPC the annulment of the Regulation on Institutional Cooperation. X 88 KLI recommends to the KPC the implementation in practice of Regulation on Public Communication. P 89 KLI recommends to the KPC in reviewing the work reports of the State Prosecutor for 2015 and 2016. Z KLI recommends to the Secretariat and KPC to draft, respectively the KPC to approve working reports of the Z 90 Council for 2015 and 2016. KLI recommends to the KPC to fulfill legal obligations regarding Performance evaluation vlerësimin of Z 91 prosecutors. 92 KLI recommends to the Director of the Secretariat to fulfill the legal obligations to KPC; P KLI recommends to KPC the beginning of the recruitment process of the Director of the Unit on Prosecutors Z 93 Performance Review. KLI recommends to the KPC and the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor in adopting the work plan of the Z 94 State Prosecutor for 2016. KLI recommends to the KPC to report to the public on the implementation of its objectives set out Z 95 specifically and based on measurable indicators every six (6) months. KLI recommends to the KPC to call the Chief Prosecutors of all prosecutions to report on the management Z 96 and administration of the respective prosecution offices. KLI recommends to the KPC members to exercise their powers and responsibilities in accordance with the X 97 law, ensuring to return the lawfulness and legitimacy of the Council; 98 KLI recommends to the KPC to evaluate and annul all the unlawful decisions adopted in the Council. X KLI recommends to the KPC members to have an active role while exercising their functions through P 99 participation in discussion and debate during the policy making and decision-making process in the KPC. KJC has implemented the recommendation of the KLI regarding the announcement of positions for judges at all levels of the courts. The KJC from 14 announced positions for judges for BC in Pristina has announced Z 100 only three positions. KJC has partially implemented the recommendation of the KLI regarding the monitoring of Basic Courts in P 101 implementing the obligations that derive from the Action Plan. Basic Court in Pristina is recommended to continue to treat cases of corruption with priority, including cases Z 102 submitted by the SPRK as cases with absolute priority. The Basic Courts are recommended that while treating corruption cases, to strictly implement the deadlines P 103 with the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the scheduling of first review, second review and main review. KPC is recommended to speed up and finalize the recruitment process and proposal for appointing positions Z 104 for new prosecutors. KPC is urgently recommended to fill free positions for prosecutors in the SPRK. This Prosecution operates Z 105 with 50% of the allowed capacity. KPC should review and annull urgently the Unlawful Instruction of the Chief State Prosecutor with the X 106 number A.no.258 / 2016, dated 29 April 2016, for treating criminal reports. Ministry of Justice and the Assembly of Kosovo have implemented the recommendation of the KLI, regarding the election of the majority of KJC members by the judiciary, in order to increase the independence Z of the judicial system from the interferences of the executive and legislative powers. This recommendation is 107 implemented through Amendment 25 of the Constitution, adopted on February 2016. 108 KJC has implemented the recommendation of the KLI, regarding the drafting of the Action Plan for the Z

103 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

resolution of corruption cases in courts with priority. KJC has partially implemented the recommendation of the KLI regarding the monitoring of Basic Courts in P 109 implementing the obligations that derive from the Action Plan. Basic Courts have partially implemented the recommendation of the KLI on increasing transparency with the P 110 public, media and civil society that monitor corruption cases. Basic Prosecution in Pristina has implemented the recommendation of the KLI for drafting the Action Plan for Increasing the Efficiency of this Prosecution in treating with corruption cases. KLI in cooperation with Chief Prosecutor of the BP in Pristina have drafted the Action Plan, which was approved at the Collegiums of Z this Prosecution on August 2015. As a result of this Action Plan and implementation in practice, in the last quarter of 2015, has increased the performance of this Prosecution in treating corruption cases and has 111 produced concrete results. Appeal Court is recommended to create adequate punitive policies and unify them with regard to criminal P 112 corruption offenses. KPC is recommended to review the Strategic Plan and Action Plan on Increasing the Efficiency of the Prosecutorial System in Fighting Corruption, Economic Crimes and the Seizure and Confiscation of Assets X Benefits gained with criminal offense. Re-view of this plan should avoid provisions that are in conflict with 113 applicable law, international standards and practices. KPC is recommended that during the review of this plan, to pay special attention to the obligations of the X 114 SPRK regarding fighting high-profile corruption. KPC is urgently recommended to fill free positions for prosecutors in the SPRK. The KPC is recommended in cooperation with SPRK, international partners that support the prosecutorial system to draft internal rules Z for the organization of this prosecution. The actual division of the SPRK into Specialized Departments should 115 be regulated by internal acts of the KPC. SPRK is recommended that prosecutors assigned to the Departments of this Prosecution should only carry out cases that enter within the competences of the Department and not implement the current practice that the same prosecutors at the same time to treat with corruption cases, war crimes, organized crime, money X laundering and financing terrorism. SPRK should have specialized prosecutors in the field of fighting 116 corruption and public procurement. KPC is recommended to have special treatment for the BP in Pristina regarding the fulfillment of additional Z 117 positions and needs for prosecutors and support personnel. Table 22 – Table of the recommendations of the KLI for three years and their implementation by the justice institutions.

104 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

ANNEX 1

FILE OF INDICTMENTS FOR CORRUPTION AND PROFILE OF THE ACCUSED BASED ON DATA OF THE SP Date Position/Function Value of the Request for Numri i Prosecution caused damage seizure/confiscation personave 13.01.2016 Former President of No information No information 1 SPRK the Constitutional Court 1.02.2016 Official persons in No information No information 2 BP Gjilan KEDS 5.02.2016 Construction No information No information 4 BP Gjilan Inspector 8.02.2016 Official No information No information 2 BP Peja 15.02.2016 Citizen No information No information 5 BP Prizren 25.02.2016 Official No information No information 1 BP Prizren 1.03.2016 Mayor of the 767,940.00 € No information 3 SPRK Municipality, Mitrovica Director of Procurement, Municipality Mitrovica Director of Economic Operator 3.03.2016 No information No information No information 23 SPRK/EULEX 3.03.2016 No information 20,310.56€; No information 4 BP Prizren 2,958€; 1,607.47€ 589.00€ 21.03.2016 No information No information No information 1 BP Prizren 14.04.2016 Official 150,00 No information 1 Bp Peja 18.05.2016 1 former Deputy No information No information 20 SPRK- 1 former Minister EULEX 19.05.2016 Doctor No information No information 3 Bp Gjilan 20.05.2016 Division Leader, No information No information 1 Bp Pristina MIA 27.05.2016 2 Bord President- No information No information 2 Bp Pristina TRA, former- member of Bord of the TRA 31.05.2016 President, Appeal No information No information 4 SPRK Court 14.06.2016 Director of Public No information No information 4 BP Pristina Services, Emergency - Municipality Drenas Certifying official at the Municipal Assembly in Drenas Official at the Municipal Assembly

105 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

in Drenas Owner of a company 15.06.2016. Indictment includes No information 64 OCSP 60 physical persons and 4 legal persons. They are: one minister, one general secretary of a ministry, 44 doctors, one nurse, 13 employees in the private health sector 21.06.2016 No information 35,000.00 No information 4 BP Prizren 01.07.2016 Official 3,306 No information 1 BP Prizren 01.07.2016 Citizen 2,051.644 No information 3 SPRK 08.07.1016 Official No information No information 2 BP Prizren 28.07.2016 Montenegrin citizen No information No information 1 SPRK 02.08.2016 Official No information No information 4 BP Peja 04.08.2016 Official No information No information 4 SPRK 09.08.2016 Official No information No information 1 BP Prizren 14.08.2016 3 Officials 1 citizen No information No information BP Prizren 4 26.08.2016 1 official in No information No information 3 SPRK 2 citizens 30.08.2016 Mayor of the 168.000 No information 1 SPRK Municipality 16.09.2016 Municipality Mayor No information No information 39 SPRK and 38 other persons 26.09.2016 Official No information No information 2 BP Gjilan 18.10.2016 Official No information No information 1 BP Prizren 25.10.2016 1 former Deputy of No information No information 39 SPRK the Assembly of Kosovo and 38 others 31.10.2016 Official No information No information 2 BP Prizren 01.11.2016 Official No information No information 1 BP Prizren 17.11.2016 11 official of the No information No information 24 SPRK Correctional Service 1 doctor

12.12.2016 1 Deputy 25.646 No information 2 SPRK 1 other Official at the Ministry of Trade No information No information 2 SPRK 12 January and Industry 2017 Owner in MDA company Chief Inspector in the Pristina Region 23 January at the Labor No information No information 1 SPRK 2017 Inspectorate and Social Welfare

106 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Former-municipal No information No information 10 SPRK 13 February mayor 2017 8 municipal officials Constructor Former- municipal No information No information 3 SPRK mayor 14 February Former-director for

2017 budget and finance Former- manager for

procurement Police officials of 24 February regional traffic in No information No information 4 BP Prizren 2017 Prizren Police official at the 1 March Police Station in No information No information 1 BP Prizren 2017 Suhareka Police officials at the 2 March highways control No information No information 20 BP Prizren 2017 unit Minister No information No information 3 SPRK General Secretary 18 March Director of the 2017 Departament of

Administration and Finance Coordinator of the observers of one of 16 June the political parties No information No information 1 BP Peja 2017 participating in the elections Commanding Authority at the 31 July 2017 No information No information 1 BP Prizren Police Station in Dragash Director of the Inspection Directorate in the No information No information 2 BP Prizren Municipality of 4 September Prizren 2017 Construction Inspector in the

Municipality of Prizren 11 October No information No information No information 3 BP Peja 2017 Director of Inspection in No information No information 2 BP Prizren 29 Municipality of September Suhareka 2017 Assembly member in the Municipal Assembly in Prizren

107

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Instructor and owner 24 October No information No information 2 BP Prizren of the driving school 2017 No information Responsible person 10 for communities in November 30.000 euros No information 1 BP Peja the Municipality of 2017 Peja Director of Public 21 Administration in November No information No information 1 BP Prizren the Municipality of 2017 Prizren 23 Director of the November PSML “Musafa No information No information 1 BP Prizren 2017 Bakiu” 28 February Police official No information No information 2 BP Prizren 2018 17 April EULEX No information No information No information 6 2018 Former director of economic crimes at No information No information 2 SPRK 5 May 2018 the Kosovo Police Businessman No information No information Officer of the Cabinet of the 440.000 euros No information 2 BP Peja 20 June Mayor of Peja 2018 Municipality Owner of a private No information company 17 August No information No information No information 3 SPRK 2018 Member of the Governmental Commission for the Recognition and 14 Verification of the 68.153.533.14 September No information 12 SPRK Status of Nation euros. 2018 Martyrs, Invalid, Veterans, Members and Internants of the KLA War Damage to the value of the surface of 978,96 m2, as Legal Official of well as 6 November Kosovo Cadastral No information 2 BP Prizren facilities, 2018 Agency warehouses and markets on the surface of 220 m2. Citizen No information 5 November Mayor of Suhareka 10.556.00 euros No information 3 BP Prizren

108

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

2018 Municipality Director of the Municipal Directorate of No information Education in Suhareka Director of PSML “Bajram Curri” in village Nishor, No information Municipality of Suhareka Former-Director of the Municipal 1 November 36,143.00 Directorate of No information 1 BP Prizren 2018 euros Inspectorates in Prizren Field Forester at the 6 December Ministry of No information No information 1 BP Peja 2018 Environment and Spatial Planning Mayor of 11 Municipality of 12.200,00 euros No information 1 BP Gjilan December Novoberdo 2018 Over 376 71,000,000 Table 23 – The profile of the accused for corruption and value of seizures and confiscations for years 2016, 2017 and 2018.

109 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

ANNEX 2

Basic Court Case number Value

Ferizaj PKR.no.1503/12 Identity Cards of Citizens, certificates issued by the Red Cross;

Ferizaj PKR.no.96/16 Banknotes in the amount of 100 euros;

Ferizaj PKR.no.12/15: Kosovar passport, Yugoslav passport, pocket notebook, phone numbers, contracts and authorizations between the company "El-Abrar", etc .; Ferizaj PKR.no.150/17 Phone;

Ferizaj PKR.no.42/17 Money in the amount of 12,570 euros, 100 dollars, 100 Swiss francs, two pistols, two magazines and four cartridges, and a hand grenade; Ferizaj PKR.no.22/17 A banknote in the amount of 50 euros, two banknotes in the amount of 20 euros and a banknote in the amount of 10 euros; Ferizaj PKR.no.194/17 Two cans with 25 liters of diesel;

Ferizaj PKR.no.193/17 Textile goods;

Gjilan PKR.no.252/17 Firearm;

Gjilan PKR.no.27/15 Confiscation of material evidence - confiscated banknotes (200 euros), disconnection order from the electric system issued by KEDS in Vitia, as well as photo documentation of banknote;

Gjilan PKR.no.496/13 There was additional penalty for confiscation of items: Certificate on seizure of excise goods dated 17.04.2013 against M.M, certificate on seizure of excise goods dated 16.04.2013 against S.M, certificate on seizure of excise goods dated 17.04 .2013 against I.S;

Gjilan PKR.no.114/15 Seizure of items – phone "Samsung" PSC 5. Confiscation of Identity Card of Kosovo Police on behalf of the Accused A.A .;

Gjilan PKR.no.47/14 Banknotes in the amount of 50 euros;

Gjilan Banknotes in the amount of 20 euros; PKR.no.185/16 Gjilan PKR.no.215/2017 Money in the amount of 500 euros;

Gjilan PKR.no.10/17 Money in the amount of 500 euros;

Gjilan PKR.no.157/16 Request for seizure of two vehicles;

Gjilan PKR.no.111/16 Banknotes 1x20 €,2x10 € and 1x5 €;

110 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Gjilan PKR.no.34/17 Banknotes in the amount of 50 euros;

Gjilan PKR.no.46/2017 20 Francs;

Gjilan PKR.no.52/2017 15 heads of cattle seized by the defendant Zenun Zejnullahu, in the absence of cattle due to their alienation to make compensation in the amount of 5,400 euros, 9 heads in the value of 1,638 euros, 26 heads in the value of 6,240 euros, 14 heads in the value of 3,055 euros, pistol, hunting rifle, number of marticuls found and passports of cattles found to some of the defendants;

Pristina PKR.no.160/17 Confiscation of falsified assets and documents;

Pristina PKR.no.341/15 Vehicles and apartment;

Pristina PKR.no.24/17 Temporary Sequestration of Items;

Pristina PKR.no.411/16 Confiscation of a "Beretta" type pistol along with a magazine and 14 bullets;

Pristina PKR.no.755/15 Before;

Pristina PKR.no.41/18 Computer, notebook;

Pristina PKR.no.600/15 Residential home, cadastral parcel, vehicle;

Pristina PKR.no.338/16 Confiscation of 31 banknotes of 500.00 euros; confiscation of items from the houses of the defendants; Pristina PKR.no.610/16 Land parcels;

Pristina PKR.no.392/17 2.200 euros, phone, sim cartel, 2.000 euros, phone Nokia E52, phone "Samsung" E10; Pristina PKR.no.352/16 Temporary Sequestration of Items; Confiscation of a vehicle (truck);

Pristina PKR.no.376/16 Three vehicles;

Pristina PKR.no.194/15 Gun;

Pristina PKR.no.27/17 Temporary Sequestration of Items;

Pristina PKR.no.688/15 Confiscation of cans with oil derivatives;

Pristina PKR.no.722/14 Temporary Sequestration of Items;

Pristina PKR.no.94/17 Banknotes in the amount of 50 euros;

111

Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Pristina PKR.no. 612/14 Private vehicle of the accused "Mercedes" type;

Pristina PKR.no. 344/15 Temporary taking of items;

Pristina PKR.no. 341/15 Against the Defendant I.H SPRK has proposed: - CONFISCATION of the vehicle Audi Q7, with plate number 01-900FG, produced in 2008 in the amount of € 37,000.00€ , Vehicle type VW Golf with plate number 01-326- FP, produced in 2009 in the amount of € 12,500€ and another vehicle type VW Golf with plate number 01-421-FL, produced in 2009, in the amount of 16,800.00€ and the money in the amount of € 11,000.00€, as a material benefit gained by committing criminal offenses; - Against the defendant Skender Canolli CONFISCATION of vehicle type VW Passat, with plate number 01-714-FL, produced in 2008, in the amount of 20.000,00 €, money in the amount of 10.560,00 Swiss francs, US $ 2,600.00 and 1,880 ,00 €, as a material benefit obtained by committing criminal offenses; - Against the Defendants Mërgim Shala CONFISCATION of the apartment in the neighborhood "Kalbria" Entrance 2, 2nd floor, apartment no. 07 with surface of 76.3m2, in the amount of 38.150,00 €; as a material benefit gained by committing criminal offenses; as well as the ARMS: by the defendant Ismet Haliti-Pistol type CZ.99 of caliber 9mm with no. 121623 with a magazine without bullets and by the defendant Skender Canolli-Pistol type of 9mm caliber, with a magazine with eight bullets and a Carabine rifle with serial no. 85269, production Crvena Zastava- Kragujevac, of caliber 8x57mm, and twenty-two bullets of this rifle. Items seized: Items seized from the defendant I.H: a. € 11,000.00€ (eleven thousand euros), 22 banknotes € 500; vehicle"Golf", produced in 2009, in black metal colour, with plate number 01-326-FP, ID no. WVWZZZ1KZP453134, registered on behalf of I.H; VE "Golf" car, produced in 2009, ash, metal, with registration plates 01-421-FL, ID no. WILD1KZ9Ë578466, registered in name of F.H (son of defendant I.H); vehicle Audi Q7, black colour with plate number 01-900-FG, identification number WAUZZZ4L69D025641, produced in 2008, registered in A.P name, where the investigation revealed that the factual owner of this vehicle is the defendant I.H. Seized items from the defendant S.C - 10,560CHF (ten thousand and five hundred and sixty Swiss francs) - 1,880 € (one thousand eight hundred and eighty euros), - $ 2,600 USD (two thousand and six hundred US dollars); Vehicle "Passat" with metallic black colour, with plate number 01-714-FL, produced in 2008, ID no. WVWZZZ3CZ9E520573, registered in name of L.C (the son of the defendant S.C) Property seized from the defendant M.Sh. apartment no. 8 with a surface of 76.3m2, entrance 2, 2nd floor, 2nd floor in the neighborhood of Calabria; Pristina PKR.no.642/15 Confiscation of: apartment in Klina with surface of 36 m2, two storey house in surface of 209 m2, agricultural land with surface of 1182 m2 two parcel land, business premises with surface of 39.86 m2, apartment on surface of 97.30 m2, parcel land in Ulcinj in a surface of 308 m2, another parcel of 171 m2 in Ulcinj, vehicle type AUDI A6, financial means on behalf of the sale of two business premises bought by Kole Puka according to contracts placed in case files in the amount of 63 thousand euros

Pristina PKR.no. 161/14 A paper in which payment of money is seen;

Pristina PKR.no. 652/15 Seizure of 5000 euros from the accused;

112 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Pristina PKR.no. 190/14 Invoice 4,200 euros; Invoice 3000 euros; Invoice 3000 euros; 09.04.2013 - Certificate of Temporary Access: MPAD Decision - NGO; Authorization 02.04.2010; 06.01.2010 - Certification of Temporary Access: NGO License; RFN Certificate; Statute; Payment Forms; 02.05.2013 - Certificate of temporary seizure of items: Cash Book 2010; Cash Book 2010; 28.12.11 - Certification on confiscation of items: One block (payment receipt); A flap of 14 sheets; Invoice 4.200 euro; Invoice 3000 euro; Invoice 3000 euro; 09.04.2013 - Certification on Temporary seizure of items: MAPD Decision - NGO; Authorization 02.04.2010; 06.01.2010 - Certification on Temporary seizure of items: NGO License; RFN Certificate; Statute; Payment Forms; 02.05.2013 - Certification on temporary seizure of items: Cash Book 2010; Cash Book 2010; 28.12.11 - Certification on confiscation of items: One block (payment receipt); A flap of 14 sheets; Pristina PKR.no.305/16 Computers;

Pristina PKR.no.214/13 Confiscation of money in the amount of 100 euro;

Pristina PKR.no.243/13 Confiscation of the banknote in the amount of 10 euro;

Pristina PKR.no.222/15 Confiscation of the banknote in the amount of 50 euro;

Pristina PKR.no.201/14 Confiscation of the items mentioned in the indictment of the Basic Prosecution of Prishtina; Pristina PKR.no.303/16 Temporary taking of: Contract VR.no.5687 / 1997 dated 28.01.1990, contract of sale of the real estate of the 20.03.2012; Pristina PKR.no.932/13 Computer case;

Pristina PKR.no.178/16 Confiscation of the banknote in the amount of 50 euros;

Prizren P.no.149/14 Artificial fertilizer in the amount of 28 tons and 125 bags of 50 kg weight;

Prizren P.no.192/16 Two banknotes in the amount of 50 euros;

Prizren P.no.12/18 Banknotes in the amount of 10 euros;

Prizren P.no.23/18 Banknotes in the amount of 20 euros and banknotes in the amount of 20 euro;

Gjakova PKR.no. 10/14 Proposal to confiscate 7,800 and 134,753.71 euros for one of the accused H.B. whereas for the other accused Z. K, 1,835.36 euros; Gjakova PKR.no. 193/15 Amount in the value of 6,620 euros;

Gjakova P.no.60/16 Confiscation of diploma and confiscation of diploma certificate;

Gjakova PKR.no.100/17 7.800 and 134.753.71 euros and 1,835.36 euros.

113 Kosovo Law Institute March 2019

Gjakova PKR.no.73/17 Banknotes in the amount of 20 euros;

Mitrovica P.no.60/16 Confiscation of money amount of 250 euros;

Mitrovica P.no.17/2016 Bullet;

Mitrovica P.no.23/17 Banknotes in the amount of 100 euros;

Mitrovica P.no.937/2013 The narcotic quantity of marijuana of 1,200 kg;

Mitrovica P.no 328/13 Request for confiscation: Bullet 17.428 kg./ 9465 plate x 37,479 kg;

Peja PKR.no.64/17 Banknotes in the amount of 10 euros;

Peja PKR.no.106/17 Laptops and phone;

Table 24 – List of seized/confiscated assets in corruption cases monitored by the KLI.

114