At the same time, the appeals judges have given a detailed account of the process that Haradinaj must follow in order to get permission from the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, when he wishes to carry out particular activities of this kind.
Haradinaj is charged with 17 counts of crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in the abduction, abuse and murder of Serbs, Roma and suspected Albanian collaborators in 1998, during his time in the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA.
The appeals chamber ruled that any request sent by Haradinaj to UNMIK will have to be copied to Hague prosecutors, who will then be allowed to make a brief submission on the matter.
While UNMIK will have the final say in any given case, it will be required to take the prosecution’s point of view into account and will have to explain the reasoning behind its decision.
Of the five judges who make up the appeals chamber, two – Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen and Judge Wolfgang Schomburg – opposed the move.
They argued that it was inappropriate for the trial chamber to give a third party responsibility for striking the balance between the accused’s right to freedom of speech and considerations such as the safety of witnesses and the likelihood that he will return to The Hague to stand trial.
Haradinaj is charged with 17 counts of crimes against humanity for his alleged involvement in the abduction, abuse and murder of Serbs, Roma and suspected Albanian collaborators in 1998, during his time in the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA.
The appeals chamber ruled that any request sent by Haradinaj to UNMIK will have to be copied to Hague prosecutors, who will then be allowed to make a brief submission on the matter.
While UNMIK will have the final say in any given case, it will be required to take the prosecution’s point of view into account and will have to explain the reasoning behind its decision.
Of the five judges who make up the appeals chamber, two – Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen and Judge Wolfgang Schomburg – opposed the move.
They argued that it was inappropriate for the trial chamber to give a third party responsibility for striking the balance between the accused’s right to freedom of speech and considerations such as the safety of witnesses and the likelihood that he will return to The Hague to stand trial.
