Rexhep Selim's lawyer challenges the evidence of the OTP in The Hague

2026-02-13 10:42:00, Kosova & Bota CNA

Attorney Eric Tully, defending Rexhep Selimi in the trial of former KLA leaders, has cast doubt on the validity of documents and evidence presented by the Special Prosecution Office (SPO).

According to the defense, the documents that the ZPS claims are related to Selimi do not contain references to a previous order and do not prove a direct relationship with him. The ZPS has failed to show that the aforementioned letter was sent by Selimi in 1999, while the time period of the evidence does not match the indictment.

Attorney Tully emphasized that the documents did not come from KLA structures, but from the KPC, and no person who used the identification cards was called by the prosecution to confirm the connection to Selimi.

The defense argues that the names and photographs of the individuals do not indicate that Selimi was among them and there is no evidence that he had knowledge of the commission of the crimes alleged in the indictment.

The defense argument also includes the lack of connection between the documents, cards, and the alleged crimes, strongly challenging the ZPS's claims.

"The document has no reference to any previous order or report that was used by these individuals, not a single word indicates that there was any previous relationship in the reporting. The SPO has not confirmed that this letter was sent by Mr. Selimi in 1999."

The SPO has tacitly admitted the weakness of its evidence for the distorted reporting it says was sent to the Ministry of Interior by the KLA police command in the summer-autumn of 1999.

From a time period perspective, it is correct, but the way they refer to the evidence is outside the period of the indictment.

Another detail is the fact that none of the documents were sent by the KLA because it was disbanded, but came from the KPC, and that is not part of the SPO's arguments at all.

The fact that the KLA police and the Ministry of Internal Affairs are mentioned in this paragraph precisely illustrates how vague this term is and how the SPO uses this term.

These documents, which are entirely relevant after the indictment period, cannot be claimed by the SPO as evidence.

One last point. The identification tools and forms used by the SPO, the prosecutor has talked about forms, photographs and identification tools mentioned in paragraph 302 of the file and they say this is strong evidence to prove our arguments.

The argument is elaborated on in 509, 501 of the file.

Without the necessary evidence that Mr. Selimi instructed or ordered the actions of the persons who held these cards, the prosecution cannot prove their existence and cannot say that he had authority over these persons who held those cards.

The trial panel must take into account that combined with the failure to present operative evidence, the SPO did not summon a single person who had this card. They did not do this.

The connection between the cards and the crimes for which charges are being filed has not been proven.

The names and photographs do not indicate that Mr. Selimi was among these people.

"There is no evidence that Mr. Selimi had knowledge of the crimes committed by the listed persons," said attorney Tully./ CNA