[A-PAL] a-pal newsletter!!!

[Alice Mead]

A-PAL Newsletter
Albanian Prisoner Advocacy
May 16, 2001

       URGENT ACTION---RELEASE LUAN AND BEKIM MAZREKU!
      APRIL 18, 2001__
  LUAN AND BEKIM MAZREKU WERE SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS FOR ALLEGED CRIMES 
IN ORAHOVEC/RAHOVEC THAT OCCURRED TWO WEEKS AFTER THEY WERE ARRESTED 
AND IMPRISONED! THE ONLY EVIDENCE USED IN THIS YEAR-LONG TRIAL WERE 
CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BY TORTURE.

         The Mazreku case is an outrageous example of the type of 
abuse and injustice the Serb Ministry of Justice has long 
practiced-and indeed continues to practice-- in trials of ethnic 
Albanians. They were accused of murdering an Albanian in July 1998, 
who turns out to have committed suicide in 1981. They were also 
accused of raping and murdering a group of Serbs, when in fact they 
had already been arrested and were in jail when the alleged act of 
terrorism took place. They were repeatedly and severely tortured to 
obtain confessions. They were held for over 18 months before their 
trial. Their records and court documents are missing. The 
investigating judge was Danica Marinovic, the same judge who oversaw 
the torture camp at Lipjan Prison and the Dubrava Massacre. They were 
guilty even before the crime occurred -held as scapegoats  simply 
because of their ethnicity. They are now being held in Nis Prison, 
waiting for their appeal before the Serb Supreme Court.

          The Mazreku Trial was outrageously Flawed! We Urge The Serb 
Supreme Court to Overturn their Conviction AND TO REESTABLISH THE 
RULE OF LAW IN SERBIA AND TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL 
NORMS.

   From the trial analysis by HLC
Here is evidence entered in their defense. This evidence was denied 
in the first two attempts at a trial.
6. To admit as evidence the 2 July 1998 custody order issued by the 
Priština Police Department for Bekim and Luan Mazreku and the 2 July 
1998 certificate on their admission to jail, in view of the fact that 
they were charged with a criminal offense committed after the date of 
their arrest, i.e. in the 17-22 July 1998 period.


INTERNATIONALS CANNOT ALLOW THIS TYPE OF GROSS INJUSTICE TO CONTINUE 
UNCHECKED. The 140 Albanian Prisoners Must Be Released. Now.





            HLC TRIAL ANALYSIS:  CONVICTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE

            Legal Analysis of the Mazreku Trial-April 18, 2001


The Humanitarian Law Center/Belgrade points out that the District 
Court in Niš sentenced two Kosovo Albanians to long terms of 
imprisonment in spite of the lack of any incriminating evidence 
against them.  After a trial which lasted a year, the five-man panel 
of the District Court on 18 April 2001 unanimously found Luan and 
Bekim Mazreku from Mališevo guilty of terrorism under Article 125 of 
the federal Criminal Code (CC) and, pursuant to Article 139 (2) of 
the CC, sentenced them both to 20 years, the maximum term envisaged 
by law.  The Court ordered the Mazrekus to be remanded to custody 
until the sentence became final.
The Indictment
Luan and Bekim Mazreku were sentenced on the basis of indictment Kt. 
167/98 – amended in 3 April 2001, which charged them with acts of 
terrorism under Art. 125 CC and punishable under Art. 139 (2). In the 
indictment, Prosecutor Miodrag Surla alleged:
Luan in March and Bekim in May of 1998 joined the terrorist 
organization called “Lumi.”  Luan Mazreku participated in the attack 
on Orahovac from 17 to 22 July 1998 in which Andjelko Kosti? and 
Rajko Nikoli? were killed and, in the same period, abducted 43 
persons who, together with other abducted persons, i.e. 100 abducted 
persons in all, were taken to Kle?ka where they were tortured.  On 
this occasion, Luan raped a Serb girl between the age of 12 and 15, 
and severed the ear of an eight-year-old boy.  Bekim Mazreku raped 
several women after which, together with another 18 members of the 
KLA [Kosovo Liberation Army] they committed a mass execution by 
shooting.”
The Trial
The Mazreku trial opened before the District Court in Niš on 3 April 
2000.  The panel was made up of Judge Milimir Luki? (presiding), 
Judge Dragoljub Žarkovi?, and three lay judges.  Owing to 
adjournments which lasted over a month, it commenced de novo twice 
more, on 20 September 2000 and 23 January 2001.
The original indictment, brought by the Priština District 
Prosecutor’s Office (Kt. 167/98) in which Luan and Bekim Mazreku were 
charged with seditious conspiracy (Art. 136 (2), CC)) in conjunction 
with terrorism (Art. 125, CC) was read on 3 April and 20 September:
With the intent of threatening the constitutional order and security 
of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, they engaged in acts of 
violence against members of the police force, Yugoslav Army and 
civilian population, acts which created a feeling of insecurity among 
civilians; became members of the terrorist gang called Lumi and, as 
such, abducted and murdered two Albanians – Agim Thaqi and Faik 
Bitiqi - and abducted and shot to death several tens of Orahovac 
citizens.”
After reading of the indictment, Luan and Bekim Mazreku pleaded not 
guilty to all counts and alleged that the statements they had made to 
the investigating judge were coerced from them.  On 6 April 2000, 
Luan Mazreku told the Court:
When we were arrested, they beat us with nightsticks.  They took us 
from Mališevo to Glogovac where police, soldiers and even civilians 
beat us.  We were there for about two hours and then we were taken to 
Priština.  They beat us until the police inspectors came.  It was 
there that we were separated and didn’t see each other again.  Two 
days later, they gave me some papers and made me sign them, promising 
to let me go if I did.  I signed the papers with my hands tied.  Then 
they gave me a paper with typewriting on it and said I was to learn 
what it said by heart.  I read the text and saw it was the same 
rigged thing and refused to learn it.  They gave me two injections to 
make me learn the text.  They went on beating me and threatening to 
kill me; they cut my left ear.  After this torture, I agreed to learn 
the text they had given me.  The next day, they took me and Bekim to 
Kle?ka where, with beatings and threats, they made me say the text I 
had learned in front of the cameras.
Bekim Mazreku stated that he was beaten by police, one of whom 
stubbed out a cigarette on his penis and then pierced it with an 
electric wire.  He said gun barrels were pushed into his mouth, 
breaking two of his teeth, that his nose was cut, and that he was 
forced to sign his purported statement, which was written up by 
police.  When at first he refused, he was given a cup of coffee in 
which police had dissolved two pills, after which he signed.  He said 
he was then taken to Kle?ka where he was forced to make another 
statement, and that he did not know he was being filmed.  “The 
statement said I killed 10 people.  After the torture I went through, 
any man would have backed down,” Bekim Mazreku told the Court.
The first expert witness to appear was Slaviša Dobri?anin, a 
pathologist with the Priština Institute of Forensic Medicine, who 
examined the skeletal remains recovered at Kle?ka.  The pathologist 
contradicted himself with regard to the time of death of the persons 
whose remains were found, stating first that death occurred in July 
1998 and then saying he was unable to fix the exact time.  Nor did he 
specify how many deaths were involved, saying only, “We were talking 
about six or seven corpses.”
The statements made by Luan and Bekim Mazreku to the investigating 
judge, and two Priština Police Department lists of missing persons – 
those who disappeared in Kosovo from 1 January to 21 September 1998, 
and those who went missing in the Orahovac area in the 17-22 July 
1998 period – were introduced as evidence.
At the first two sessions, the Court denied all requests by the 
defense to present evidence.   It was only on 23 January 2001, when 
the trial commenced for the third time, that some of these previously 
denied motions were allowed, to wit:
1. To admit as evidence the UNMIK-issued death certificates of Agim 
Thaqi (deceased in 1981) and Faik Bitiqi (deceased on 19 April 2000).
2. That the defendants be medically examined and that the Court hear 
the results of the examination. (Testifying subsequently, Radovan 
Karadži? and Miodrag Zdravkovi?, the forensic specialists who 
examined Luan and Bekim Mazreku, said they had established scars but 
were unable to determine when or how they were inflicted.)
3. To admit as evidence a news report headlined “Aslan Kle?ka Killed” 
published by the Politika Ekspres daily on 10 September 1998. The 
report includes a photograph found in Kle?ka, copies of which were 
handed out to news reporters who were told it was of persons who had 
committed the Kle?ka crime.  Luan and Bekim Mazreku were not on the 
photograph.
4. That the Court take note of the decision of the Priština District 
Court (Ki-143/98) whereby defense counsel Aziz Rexha was denied the 
right to be present during the interrogation of his clients and some 
of the investigative procedures, a clear violation of the defendants’ 
right to counsel during the investigatory stage of the proceedings.
5. To admit as evidence the medical report of Dr Selatin Hakush dated 
25 December 1998 stating that Luan Mazreku’s intelligence quotient 
was below the average.
6. To admit as evidence the 2 July 1998 custody order issued by the 
Priština Police Department for Bekim and Luan Mazreku and the 2 July 
1998 certificate on their admission to jail, in view of the fact that 
they were charged with a criminal offense committed after the date of 
their arrest, i.e. in the 17-22 July 1998 period.
7. To admit as evidence the 28 August 1998 on-site investigation 
report (Kio-143/98) since it differs from the report introduced at 
the trial.
8. To admit as evidence the findings and opinion of a team of 15 
Finnish forensic experts who conducted DNA tests on the bones 
recovered at Kle?ka and established that they were of three men of 
middle age and that the time of their death could not be determined 
with certainty.  The Finnish experts concluded that several years 
might have passed from the time of death to the moment when the DNA 
tests were done.
The Court accepted a joint motion by the prosecution and defense to 
view the video tape of the on-site investigation at Kle?ka.  The 
tape, which included the questioning of the defendants on the 
location by Investigating Judge Danica Marinkovi? was shown in a news 
bulletin on Serbian Television.  The Mazrekus stated that they made 
the statements in front of the cameras after being tortured at the 
police station where they were given the text of what they were to 
say when being filmed.
In spite of the objections of the defense, the Court also viewed a 
video-tape taken on the premises of the State Security Service in 
Priština by Priština Television reporter Dragan Luki?.  The tape was 
to be used in making a special report on the Kle?ka incident and, 
Luki? said, excerpts were shown on Novi Sad Television.  The tape run 
in Court had obviously been cut in places and the reporter posed his 
questions not as a journalist who wished to establish what happened 
at Kle?ka but as someone who already knew all the details and only 
wanted confirmation.  For their part, Luan and Bekim Mazreku said 
they could not identify Luki? as the reporter who interviewed them, 
and said they did not even remember giving the interview.
In accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the Court ruled 
the second video tape inadmissible.  The harm, however, had already 
been done as the tape could have led the public in the courtroom as 
well as the panel itself to believe the defendants were guilty.
The Court denied a defense motion for another forensic examination of 
the remains found in Kle?ka by any specialized institution of its 
choosing.  Defense counsel considered that another examination was 
necessary as the findings of the Priština Forensic Medicine Institute 
differed from those of the team of Finnish pathologists.  According 
to the Finnish experts, the Kle?ka remains were of three middle-aged 
men whereas the Priština Institute said the bones of six persons 
between the ages of five and 60 were recovered on the site. The 
Priština experts were definite that the time of death was July 1998 
while their Finnish colleagues concluded that the precise time could 
not be established and that death might have occurred two years 
before the Kle?ka incident.  The Finnish pathologists further said 
that bullet traces were found only on one set of skeletal remains, in 
contrast to the Priština pathologists who said all the victims were 
shot to death.
The Court also denied a defense proposal to call as a witness Zeqir 
Ademi, guard commander at the Priština District Prison, in order to 
determine whether or not Luan and Bekim Mazreku were subjected to 
torture during police custody and the pre-trial proceedings.
After the closing of evidence, Prosecutor Miodrag Surla amended the 
indictment, dropping the counts of seditious conspiracy and murder of 
the two ethnic Albanians, but retaining that of terrorism.  The 
amended indictment was translated into Albanian and, on hearing the 
charges, the Mazrekus again pleaded not guilty, standing by their 
previous defense.
Closing Arguments
In his closing argument, Prosecutor Surla moved that the Court admit 
as evidence the statements made by the Mazrekus to the investigating 
judge, assessing their defense at the trial as “illogical, 
implausible and somewhat naive.”  He went on to say that the “flimsy 
defense of the accused is evident from the fact that the trial had 
commence anew three times” and that “the defendants kept 
contradicting themselves at all the sessions.”
I am confident the Court will accept as true and convincing the 
statement he [Bekim Mazreku] made during the investigation, a 
statement that was the result of his remorse... The fact that he 
presented two different defenses confirms that he was not coached or 
coerced into saying what he thought was best for him.
The prosecutor concluded by calling on the newly formed courts and 
prosecutor’s offices in Kosovo to summon Fatmir Limaj, Hysni Hilaj 
and Gani Krasniqi, persons named by Luan and Bekim Mazreku in their 
coerced statements as leaders of the KLA headquarters in Mališevo, 
and to ask them only one question: “What happened in Kle?ka?”  He 
urged the Court to find the defendants guilty and sentence them to 
prison terms.
The defense in its closing argument pointed to a series of violations 
during the entire proceedings:
- Presumption of innocence was not respected as Luan and Bekim 
Mazreku were declared guilty by the media while the investigation was 
still under way;
- Although the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defense was 
continually in the position of having to prove the innocence of the 
defendants;
- The indictment was based solely on the statements made by Luan and 
Bekim Mazreku to the investigating judge and on evidence that a crime 
had in fact been committed in Kle?ka but now evidence was presented 
that the perpetrators were the Mazrekus.
- The defense also noted the discrepancies between the original 
on-site investigation report and the report presented at the trial, 
which, the prosecutor explained, had been written on the basis of the 
recollection and notes of Investigating Judge Danica Marinkovi?.  It 
remained unclear how a report relying on recollection could contain 
more detail than one written up on the site and during the 
investigation itself.  The original report mentioned several 
lime-kilns at the location while the subsequent one specified only 
one kiln, in the ashes of which skeletal remains were found.  There 
was, however, no reference to skeletal remains in the original report.
- Evidence presentation was not in accordance with the standards of a 
fair trial as the panel, though it did not possess professional 
expertise on the subject, did not allow obtaining of additional 
expert opinion on the findings of the Priština Forensic Medicine 
Institute and the findings of the Finnish pathologists.
- The defense pointed out that the custody order of Bekim Mazreku 
bore the date 2 July 1998 while he was charged with an offense that 
occurred in the 17-22 July period, and that the date on both the 
order and certificate of admission to jail of Luan Mazreku was 
changed from 2 July to 2 August 1998.
Defense counsel concluded that no incriminating evidence against the 
defendants was presented during the trial and urged the Court to find 
them not guilty.
Sentencing was scheduled for 12 April.  However, when the Court 
convened it informed those present that a witness, who was among 
those abducted on the road to Orahovac on 17 July 1998 and held at 
Mališevo, had come forward during its deliberations.  The Court 
decided to hear the testimony of this eyewitness of events in 
Orahovac and Mališevo ex officio.
It also ruled that the testimony would be given in camera  on the 
grounds that, if made public, it could endanger the witness’s family 
members who were also abducted on the Orahovac road.  Presiding Judge 
Milimir Luki? said the witness believed the family was still being 
held by the abductors and, as an additional reason for excluding the 
public, cited the possibility of the testimony disturbing the Serb 
population.  After the witness was heard, Prosecutor Surla said the 
new evidence substantiated the charges set out in the indictment.  He 
said the witness’s description of what happened in Mališevo tallied 
fully with the statements made by the defendants to the investigating 
judge and queried how the defendants could have described the 
incident so accurately unless they had been present when it occurred.
Stating that the witness’s testimony was a moving account of the fate 
of a family and their imprisonment in Mališevo, the defense noted 
that the witness did not identify the defendants as the abductors 
although recalling all the details of the abduction: time, models and 
number of vehicles, location to which they were driven.
The defense considered that, if the defendants had been among the 
abductors, the witness would certainly have been able to identify 
them and said this testimony only confirmed that the abductions in 
Orahovac did take place but not who the abductors were.
The Judgment
On 18 April 2001, the panel of the Niš District Court by unanimous 
decision found Luan and Bekim Mazreku guilty of the criminal offense 
of terrorism under Art. 125 of the CC and, pursuant to Art. 139 
sentenced them to 20 years in prison, the maximum term envisaged by 
law.  The Mazrekus were ordered remanded to custody until the 
sentence became final, in accordance with Art. 353 (1) of the CPC 
under which custody is mandatory when defendants have been sentenced 
to five or more years in prison.
Setting out the reasons for the Court’s decision, Presiding Judge Luki? said:
“Upon receiving the case of Luan and Bekim Mazreku and reading the 
description of the acts with which they are charged, I could not 
believe that anyone could commit such atrocious crimes in the name of 
any cause.  However, the facts established at this trial were 
incontrovertible that terrible crimes were committed in Kle?ka 
village and uncovered the perpetrators – Luan and Bekim Mazreku.
The guilt of the defendants has not been construed nor have they been 
framed, as they claimed in their defense.  Guilt has been established 
individually and precisely through the confession of the defendant 
Luan Mazreku.
His was not a common confession but a clear and logical narrative 
giving the sequence of events and specific details and descriptions 
of the location, buildings, objects and persons that can be given 
only by a person who actually took part in those events.  In their 
defense, the defendants alleged that the confession was planted by 
inspectors of the Serbian police force and made under the influence 
of stupor-inducing drugs.  This was proved untrue when another person 
who was present at this tragedy came forward and whose eyewitness 
testimony together with details, description of the location, 
buildings, objects and persons was identical to Luan Mazreku’s 
confession.  The scope of this testimony was naturally limited by the 
eyewitness’s physical presence during the event and ability to 
observe the details cited, but even so it unambiguously demonstrates 
that the event occurred as described by the defendant Luan Mazreku in 
his confession and only thus.
There are no eyewitnesses here of the most reprehensible act of this 
tragedy, the mass shooting of civilians, women and children, for none 
survived to testify about it.  The only witnesses are their 
executioners, two of whom were on trail here.
Findings and Recommendations
Impartiality of courts
Judicial bodies are bound to refrain from prejudging the outcome of 
trials.  Impartiality means that judges may not have prejudices with 
regard to the subject matter of a trial or act in a way that would 
favor either of the parties to the proceedings.  The two trial judges 
in this case as well as the prosecutor are all displaced persons from 
Kosovo, with all the negative implications of such a status.
The exposition of the presiding judge was not a factual explanation 
of the judgment but rather denoted his personal attitude toward the 
Kle?ka incident, a further confirmation that the Court was not 
impartial.  In his closing argument, the prosecutor called on courts 
in Kosovo to uncover the perpetrators of the Kle?ka crime, a clear 
indication of his awareness that there was no evidence that Luan and 
Bekim Mazreku had committed the crime they were charged with, but 
that he considered them responsible because they are ethnic Albanians.
Right to defense
The right of an accused person to defend himself includes the right 
to an attorney of his own choice, and the right of that attorney to 
be present when his client is questioned and makes statements in the 
investigative stage of the proceedings.  Although this right is 
guaranteed by the Criminal Procedure Code, the Priština District 
Court did not allow the Mazrekus’ attorney Aziz Rexha to be present 
when they were interrogated or during certain investigative 
procedures.  Nor was the attorney able during the investigative stage 
to freely discuss the case or the defense he would present with his 
clients.  Luan and Bekim Mazreku were only permitted ask him to 
convey personal messages to their families.
Prohibition of torture and extraction of statements
Physical or mental abuse, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment 
of a person who has been taken into custody is strictly prohibited by 
both national law and international acts, and no exceptional 
circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification of 
torture.  Luan and Bekim Mazreku, however, were severely tortured in 
order to extract confessions from them, and testified in court to 
this effect.
They were beaten, subjected to electric shocks, and cut with knives 
to force them make the statements desired by the police and to sign 
confessions that they had committed the Kle?ka crime.  And then they 
were tortured again to make sure that they would repeat to the 
investigating judge these extracted statements.
Right to trial within a reasonable time
Everyone who has been arrested or detained on criminal charges has 
the right to trial within a reasonable time.  Luan and Bekim Mazreku 
were arrested on 2 August 1998 and went on trial on 3 April 2000 – 
one year and eight months after being taken into custody.
Right to proceedings without undue prolongation
Under Art. 14 of the Yugoslav Criminal Procedure Code, courts have a 
duty to conduct trials without unduly prolonging them.  That this 
principle was not respected in the Mazreku case is evident from the 
fact that intervals of four or five months passed between sessions of 
the court.
Right to use one’s own language
The defendants’ right to use their own language in court was 
respected only partially at the first two sessions.  The indictment 
was translated into Albanian whereas other pertinent evidence such as 
the expert witness’s statements, findings and others were not.
It was only at the third session that the defendants were able to 
fully exercise the right to use their own language.  This time the 
indictment, witness statements, closing arguments of the prosecution 
and defense and exposition of the judgment were translated into 
Albanian.
Presumption of innocence
It is a hallowed principle of criminal law that everyone shall be 
presumed innocent until proved guilty by a court a law (Art. 3, CPC). 
Luan and Bekim Mazreku were, however, declared guilty long before 
they went on trial by the media whose sensational reporting led the 
general public to believe them guilty.  In their coverage of the 
trial itself, reporters almost always referred to the defendants as 
“the monstrous terrorists from Kle?ka.”  The video of the purported 
confession was shown by Serbian Television in its prime time news 
bulletin.
The panel itself also failed to observe this principle.  When denying 
some defense motions, the presiding judge would state, “You can set 
that out in the appeal.”  His attitude indicated that it was known 
beforehand what verdict would be returned.
Right to a fair trial
One of the most important stages in a criminal trial is the 
presentation of evidence when, acting on the motions of the parties 
or ex officio, the court must determine fully and accurately the 
facts of the case.  The substantive truth principle (Art. 15, CPC) 
stipulates that courts have a duty bring out truthfully and 
completely evidence of consequence to the determination of the 
action, and Art. 322 (2) of the CPC states that presentation of 
evidence pertains to all facts the court deems of consequence for the 
proper rendering of the verdict.  The panel trying the Mazrekus 
obviously was not governed by this principle, denying at the first 
two sessions all the defense motions and allowing those of the 
prosecution.
When the trial started anew for the third time, some of the 
previously denied defense motions were allowed, including 
introduction of the Finnish pathologists’ findings and opinion. 
However, this turned out to be a mere formality as the Court did not 
uphold the defense proposal to obtain another forensic opinion to 
decide whether credence should be given to the Priština Institute’s 
or the Finnish team’s report.  Had the evidence presentation been in 
accordance with the standards of a fair trial, the Court would have 
ex officio sought a third opinion.
The Court denied a defense motion to hear Zeqir Ademi in order to 
establish whether or not Luan and Bekim Mazreku had been subjected to 
torture during police custody and the pre-trial stage.  It thereby 
disregarded its obligation to determine how the defendants’ 
statements had been obtained as both national law and internationally 
recognized standards deem inadmissible statements made under any kind 
of duress.
The trial proceeded in entirety on the basis of the recollection of 
the investigating judge and reconstructed documents since the 
original record, which remained at the Priština District Court, was 
inaccessible.  It would therefore have been logical and in accordance 
with the CPC for the Court to have granted defense counsel’s motions 
for the introduction of evidence which could have helped to clarify 
the facts.
Where confessions are concerned, courts must under Art. 32 off the 
CPC evaluate their credibility and establish whether they are borne 
out by other evidence.
The indictment as well as the judgment were based solely on the 
statements made by Luan and Bekim Mazreku to the investigating judge 
in spite of the many contradictions and inconsistencies they 
contained, as did also their statements in court.  However, neither 
the investigating judge in the pre-trial stage nor the panel made any 
attempt to establish which of them were true.   When questioned by 
the investigating judge, the Mazrekus admitted to abducting aand 
murdering two Albanians, Agim Thaqi and Faik Bitiqi, and the original 
indictment contained this count.  When the defense was able to prove 
that Thaqi committed suicide in 1981 and Bitiqi died in 2000, the 
prosecutor withdrew the charge.  The Court’s decision to accept this 
and other amendments to the indictment clearly demonstrates the 
inequality of arms in this case.   The practice at all trials of 
Kosovo Albanians was to place the burden of proof on the defense 
instead of the prosecution.
The Mazrekus confessed to abducting a man who committed suicide long 
before they allegedly kidnapped him, and another who died of natural 
causes almost two years afterwards.  Would it then not have been 
justified to doubt the credibility of the rest of the Mazrekus’ 
statements, especially in view of their allegation of torture at the 
hands of the police in Priština?  The panel, however, made no attempt 
to weigh the statements as a whole, preferring to accept the parts 
which supported the prosecution’s case.
A specific of this trial was the belated appearance of the 
eyewitness, on the very day the Court had scheduled the sentencing. 
The panel ruled to hear the eyewitness without the presence of the 
public in the court room and postponed the sentencing.
The exposition of the court’s decision given by the presiding judge 
indicates that the panel handed down a conviction based solely on the 
testimony of this eyewitness who, however, was not able to identify 
the defendants, and the confession of Luan Mazreku to the 
investigating judge.  It is only logical that the statements coerced 
from the defendants and the eyewitness’s testimony tallied as the 
descriptions of the location, buildings, and objects found there and 
the events that took place were established by police and the 
investigating judge during the on-site investigation.
All the prosecution was able to prove was that a crime had been 
committed at Kle?ka.  It presented no evidence to prove that the 
Mazrekus had committed this crime, and this was sufficient grounds 
for the Court to find them not guilty. Instead, it handed down a 
conviction solely on the basis of the confessions coerced from the 
defendants.
Recommendation
Both international acts and national law guarantee a fair trial to 
all, irrespective of the ethnicity of the accused, the acts of which 
they are accused and the manner in which those acts were committed. 
The District Court in Niš disregarded this guarantee only because 
Luan and Bekim Mazreku are ethnic Albanians.
The decision in this case has not yet become final.  The Serbian 
Supreme Court should set aside the lower court’s ruling and order a 
retrial as well as the release of the Mazrekus pending the new trial. 
The Supreme Court should also instruct the District Court to apply 
all the legal provisions that would guarantee the fairness of the new 
trial.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 31184 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.alb-net.com/pipermail/a-pal/attachments/20010516/29c07411/attachment.bin