All the other 100+ witnesses who were called appeared. The prosecution have NEVER claimed otherwise, so you have either been grossly misinformed, or more likely have misinterpreted what you read. Don’t worry - it could happen to anyone. For a non-native speaker, your English is really quite good.

As for whether the witnesses who did testify were too terrified to tell “the truth”… well, it’s simply impossible to know one way or another. Your assumptions, however, are just that - assumptions, and have no grounding in the type of verifiable fact that the law needs to deal in. We may never know the absolute truth about Haradinaj, but we do know one thing. In the eyes of the law, he’s an innocent man. I suggest you learn to deal with it.

As Fidel Pardussi already pointed out, Haradinaj was not just good at pleasing the internationals: he worked hard and pushed others to do the same. And that makes a difference in a government culture where ministers consider an 8 hour working day much too much and they have many other “business interests” to tend to.

This is so vital when you look at the types of witnesses the prosecution was calling. All known war criminals, many already convicted and the albanians who had been tortured by the serbs into making statements (fact).

If Bganon thinks for one minute that their testimony would have stood up in court he is very much mistaken. Ben Emmerson would have torn them to shreds, leading to their own conviction as happened to those witnesses who did testify and many would not have even had a chance to testify as they would have been objected to on the grounds that they had been treated as war criminals in other cases.

Haradinaj was acquitted whether you believe he is guilty or innocent, on the failure of the prosecution to put together any type of convincing/compelling case (as carla del ponte promised in her opening speech. Instead they came to court with evidence that was inadequate, insubstantial and non existent.

I say it is because ‘there was no conspiracy to commit war crimes, His targets were combatants, not civilians. Ramush haradinaj is not a war criminal, and the prosecutors decision to indict him was unjust” ben Emmerson’s opening speech.

You see we can all quote bganon, but you need something original in your argument for it to stand up. All i’ve read from you is the same shit Del oonte has been churning out through out this case. And it didnt work for her so why would it work for you.

I will need to quote you again. You stated that “the judges obviously believed, as I do, that witness intimidation … was a primary factor in his being freed.”

The quote that you provide, damning though it is, is absolutely nowhere near the strong statement that you made. The judges stated that some witnesses felt unsafe, but they did not state that that was the reason why Haradinaj was found not guilty — which is what you are claiming.

It is one thing to say that some “witnesses felt unsafe” and completely another thing to say that “because some witnesses felt unsafe the accused was found not guilty.”

Now, let me clarify myself here because there seems to be some misunderstanding in your side.

I am not claiming anything here, remember. I am merely questioning your line of logic. I believe the Hague Tribunal to be a neutral and unbiased court and I fully accept their judgment regarding the Haradinaj case — and every other case for that matter. Now, when you said that the judges “believed” in something that was not in the judgement then I kindly asked you to provide the sources of such information — I am yet to see it. Moreover, I am not in the business of foreseeing the future, and I believe neither are the judges. So, neither me nor the judges can possibly know for certain what certain witnesses might have said and how their statements would have stood the rigorous questioning by the Haradinaj’s legal team. It is therefore rather stupid to state that the judges believed that that was the reason why Haradinaj was found not guilty. Nonetheless, I was very polite and did not set off in an aggressive attack against you (read again my first post to prove this) because you seem a sensible kind of guy and maybe most of us missed a very pivotal part of this judgement, but looking at the sources you provided I am left with no option but to believe that your conclusions were flawed.

For your information, I have followed the case, I watched live the reading of the judgement and read (a lot of) the document you quoted.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I strongly believe your conclusions to be flawed, ie that the judges “believed” that witness intimidation was the “primary factor” why Haradinaj was found not guilty. Judges could not possibly judge based on predications about what could have been said in court if…

This will be my last post on the matter.

All the best,

Fidel

Quite the contrary Fidel, I provided you with that damning quote ‘The Trial Chamber gained a strong
impression that the trial was being held in an atmosphere where witnesses felt unsafe’.
There is more in the judgment.

‘I am yet to see any material that led you to those flawed conclusions’.

Fidel that is because you have not read the material (judgment) have you? I am not going to do it for you.

I asked you if you saw any of the testimony? It was a complete joke, as I pointed out.

I cannot make you read the report of course, but a defence that you have not seen any evidence supporting one thing or another is meaningless if you don’t look for yourself. I mean how are you in a position to know whether allegations are ‘groundless’ or not if you did’t watch the trial or read the judgment??? Is that on guesswork, or based on proof?

No there are many instances of witness intimidation, names, places and events that went on in the Hague and elsewhere. If that bothers you, you will find out about it. If you want to act dumb then you will choose to do that instead.

You have still failed to provide me with evidence that the judges “obviously believed” that witness intimidation was a “primary factor” in their judgement.

“Believe” and “primary factor” are very strong statements and I am yet to see any material that led you to those flawed conclusions. My conclusions were different and that was the reason why I kindly asked you to enlighten me by providing me with proofs that that’s what the judges “believed”. I was interested to know what led to these conclusions rather than asking about general information regarding the Haradinaj et al case. I did not come across the above-mentioned strong statement in the judgement.

Next, you failed to point out that the Zemajs were murdered in January 2003. Haradinaj’s indictment was not issued until March 2005, ie over two years later or more precisely 26 months later. Its a bit far-fetched to try and link his Hague trial with these murders. Moreover, I failed to see any connection between these gruesome murders and Haradinaj. Make no mistake about it, I am not a fan of Haradinaj, but I don’t think it’s useful to make groundless allegations if one is not in a position to provide proof that links an individual or a group with a crime.

As I said in my previous post, judgments come in two shapes: guilty or not guilty. One cannot claim to speak with greater authority than the judges of the case. This was my point in the previous post. I cannot possibly be more authoritative than the judges of the case and for this reason I trust them in their judgement, ie not guilty.

I do respect the manner in which you conduct yourself though, bganon.

Kind regards,

Fidel

The full report is here:
http://www.un.org/icty/haradinaj/trialc/judgement/tcj080403e.pdf

I advise you to read parts of it if you want to speak about the Haradinaj case with any authority.

The prosecution stated that around 100 witnesses did not testify due to intimidation. We know who Haradinaj is so he doesnt need to murder anybody but since you asked:

‘Mr. Alec Mally, Acting Chief of Mission of the U.S. Office Pristina, strongly condemned the murder of Mr. Tahir Zemaj, his son Enis Zemaj, and his nephew Hasan Zemaj, head of the LDK Youth Forum in Decan, on January 4 in Peja/Pec.

http://pristina.usembassy.gov/press20030106.html

Now perhaps witness intimidation has occurred in other Hague trials but the Haradinaj et al trial is by far the worst. If you don’t believe me check the judgment of all other trials and see for yourself. Only in this case do the judges mention it as a ‘central’ factor.

As for your not being a specialist on law, that is a very weak argument indeed. Nobody has to be a specialist to understand the way witness intimidation works and the way it can influence a judgment. I don’t know if Haradinaj directly threatened or not, its irrelevant as the result is the same - people that have likely been traumatised already by war are terrified that something will happen to their families. Did you see any of the testimony Fidel. It was an absolute joke, with witnesses coming and going, mumbling their testimony, changing their stories, suddenly claiming to be very sick in the witness box (I bet they felt sick, poor people) refusing to walk into the court room, running away to the US. Almost comical if it were not a matter of life and death.

There is no line to draw between us here. Its a matter of being human and of knowing what 2 plus 2 adds up to.

In some of my debating with you I’m sometimes given the impression that you don’t inform yourself as well as you could on topics you write about here. With respect you should do so more. You should not rely on me to provide links and quotes.

I do believe you when you say that you don’t want murderers (war criminals etc) on the streets. That is precisely my concern in this case.

I think we have something in common: I would like to see all those responsible for any crime — not just the big fish — face justice in front of a fair and impartial court regardless of their ethnicity. I honestly would like to see all those responsible for crimes where they belong, ie not amongst us the innocent victims of the break-up of Yugoslavia. If Haradinaj were guilty of these crimes I honestly would not be happy that he walked free, but I have no “inside information” that he was guilty and I trust the Hague to judge him.

Now, this is where we part.

I asked for some evidence that the judges — not some potentially biased journalist — stated that they believed that witness intimidation was “a primary factor” in their judgment. I am yet to be see such evidence.

Let me make it absolutely clear, I am not a specialist on legal matters but I know that judgments some in two shapes: guilty or not guilty. I see no reason why judges should have to “hide” a message “between the lines.”

Finally, I think every single case that is being judged at the Hague tribunal has faced witness intimidation. Every single case without any exception. If you believe that witness intimidation was an issue only in the Haradinaj case then you must be very naive — but I know that you’re not naive, so the problem lies elsewhere. Personally I believe that if there was any major intimidation it was not on Haradinaj’s orders, but more from fellow Albanians intend on defending the liberation war of the KLA. And I would be absolutely shocked if some Haradinaj connection was able to murder — by means of a car accident — a Roma witness in Podgorica and not leave any trace whatsoever (a case which is often mentioned by the Serbian and pro-Serbian sources).

As a closing remark, I salute your stance on justice for all regardless of ethnicity. But remember justice is not 50-50, ie one Albanian in jail for every Serb or Croat or Bosniak found guilty.