KLI requires independent investigations on the manipulated file of Aleksandër Lumezit concerning the completion of the bar exam to be conducted by a team of EULEX prosecutors consisting of American, British and German prosecutors

Thursday 9 November, 2017

foto 3

Why it is important for a independent, impartial and professional investigation process of the Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi’s file

Pristina, 9 November 2017 – The Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo guarantees and protects the separation of powers in Kosovo. The position of the Chief State Prosecutor enters as the most important position in Kosovo, which should convey confidence to citizens, that their competences and responsibilities are exercised independently, impartially and fairly.  The Chief State Prosecutor should have uncontested integrity and strong credibility to transmit to the public trust and security.

For these reasons, based on the research conducted by the “Oath for Justice” team and Kohavision, which have proven that Aleksandër Lumezi bar exam file has been manipulated, KLI requests for independent, impartial and professional investigations.  KLI evaluates that such a thing is not happening for the following reasons: 1) The investigations are being conduct by the subordinate of the Chief State Prosecutor, Prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, who has directly served the Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi and who had in whatever form treated Lumezi’s cases (prosecutor of the case concerning the theft of the Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi’s telephone from his home); 2)  Investigations are being conducted by investigators of financial crimes and not by investigating police officers investigating forged documents within the Kosovo Police; 3) Seeing the blind defensive reaction from the Prosecutorial Council for Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi; 4) Seeing the blind defensive reaction for the Chief State Prosecutor by the Association of Kosovo Prosecutors; 5) Seeing the public assurance expressed by the Minister of Justice, Abelard Tahiri, who stated that the investigations for the Lumezi will be completed within the week.  All the above mentioned reasons and the dilemmas set forth below in this reaction make KLI express public concern and raise doubts about the independence, impartiality and professionalism of these investigations, which are being conducted by the subordinate of the Chief State Prosecutor, Prosecutor Kujtim Munishi.

Due to the sensitivity of the case, evidence and evidence investigated and presented, KLI requires investigations in this case to be conducted by an independent team of EULEX prosecutors, consisting of Americans, Britons and Germans. Only in this way will the public be assured that the developed investigation is independent, impartial and professional. Also, all researched and presented documents, upon which the suspicion on forgery is raised, KLI requests for them to be sent for analysis in places such as the USA, Great Britain or Germany in order to guarantee accurate results, that create full public trust on the suspicions raised for the forgery of the bar exam by Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi.  On the contrary, any results that can be rendered by the investigation process that is being led by the prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, as a subordinate of the Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi will not be trusted by the public, who already have low trust in the justice system.

 

FACTS AND EVIDENCES SECURED DURING THE RESEARCH 

Kosovo Law Institute (KLI), through the show “Oath for Justice” in cooperation with Kohavision are continuing their research on the completion of the bar exam by Aleksandër Lumezi, now Chief State Prosecutor. Below are all the facts and dilemmas that the prosecution must remove through independent, impartial and profession investigations in order to convince the public of the final result.

  • Findings from the research show that the whole file on Aleksandër Lumezit is manipulated and this is argued through the research of these relevant original documents:

 

  1. Personal file of internship of Aleksandër Lumezi;
  2. Registry book for presenting the exam;
  3. Basic file and record on passing the exam;
  4. Certificate on passing the exam that does not coincide with the basic file;

 

  • Findings in all original documents – in the registry book on passing the exam- show that:

 

  1. Aleksandër Lumezi did not present the bar exam in the original book for presenting the exam, that exists in the Kosovo Archives;
    • Aleksandër Lumezi in the original book for presenting the bar exam appears on top of the white corrector which originally contained the name Zymer Krasniqi; Therefore, the exam was presented by Zymer Krasniqi and this is supported by all the documents of the personal file and by the statement given by Krasniqi himself.
  2. The basic file does not belong to Aleksandër Lumezi;
    • Aleksandër Lumezi appears on top of the white corrector which had the original name of Zymer Krasniqi; therefore, the basic file belongs to Zymer Krasniqi and this is supported in all the personal file documents and statement by Krasniqi himself.
    • The records on passing the bar exam, that appears inside the basic file that belongs to Aleksandër Lumezi. Zymer Krasniqi does not have such records in the basic file.
    • Aleksandër Lumezi’s record is in full violation of the law, including failing the exam and the number of subjects left to be re-taken in the written exam.
  3. The registry book on the registration of candidates that have passed the bar exam exists in the original copy in the Ministry of Justice. In this book, Aleksandër Lumezi appears in Cyrillic in ordinal number 30.  It is written in this register that Aleksandër Lumezi has passed the exam on 25 April 1991. Zymer Krasniqi does not appear in this book, yet appears in the registry book for presenting the bar exam in the basic file.
  4. The certificate on passing the bar exam presented by Aleksandër Lumezi has the date 25 April 1991, as a date that he finished the bar exam. However, in the records of the basic file, it states that Aleksandër Lumezi passed the exam on 26 April 1991. According to this, it shows that the certificate was issued one day prior to passing the bar exam.
  5. The signature in this file was verified by Gjorgje Aksiq through a verification notarised in Belgrade, Serbia with the request of Aleksandër Lumezi. The verification by Aksiq serves as the only evidence of authenticity of the signature that is on Lumezi’s certificate. According to the verification issued with the request of Aleksandër Lumezi,     Gjorgje Aksiq stated full responsibility that “Certificate for passing the bar exam 02 no.152-1-1217/90 dated 06.05.1991, that I was given to look at, which states that Aleksandër Lumezi from Pristina, on 25.04.1991 has passed the bar exam, I have signed it”.

 

  • Documents from the year 2000, which were held by the members of the Legal Advisory Committee, whom were responsible for the evaluation of candidates for judges and prosecutors in 1999 and 2000 during UNMIK’s time.

 

  1. UNMIK in 1999/2000 created a Committee with a majority of local members together with international members for the recruitment of judges and prosecutors straight after the end of the war in Kosovo.
  2. This committee possesses minutes, which testify to the methodology of how the data on the candidates who applied for these positions were evidenced.
  3. The record proves that candidate Aleksandër Lumezi did not have the bar exam in 2000 and was therefore excluded from appointment as a judge.
  4. The records of 2000 prove that at that time, outside of the proposals of this Committee, names were proposed for the appointment of judges and prosecutors, contrary to the vacancy announcement criteria, respectively candidates were proposed who did not complete the bar
  5. The Chair and members of this Committee, according to the records, had strongly opposed the interventions in the candidate lists, pointing out that UNMIK Administrator Mr. Bernard Kouchner, was sent nominees who did not have the bar exam.
  6. Kushner appointed 31 judges and prosecutors, that were proposed by the Legal Advisory Committee, where among them were candidates that did not have the bar exam.

 

  • Witnesses from the year 2000, that were members of the Legal Advisory Committee, that were responsible for the evaluation of candidates for judges and prosecutors in 1999 and 2000 in UNMIK’s time.

 

  1. Riza Smaka former Chair of this Committee, based on the work of this Committee who had tracked the candidates’ data and interviewed them in 1999/2000, stated publicly that Aleksandër Lumez did not have the bar exam. Smaka has proven that Lumezi has justified the lack of a bar examination because there was no organization of this exam during the regime of Serbia over Kosovo in the 1990s.
  2. Adil Fetahu former Member of this Committee, who had evidenced the data of the candidates and interviewed them in 1999/2000, publicly stated that Aleksandër Lumezi did not have the bar exam. Fetahu has personally stated that he held notes and asked Lumezi, who had stated that he did not have the bar exam.  He offered the minutes prepared in 2000 as evidence of his public statement.

 

  1. Ragip Halili former member of this Committee, stated that the records exist, in which he and other members of the Committee, harshly reacted against those that were added to the candidate list, whom did not complete the bar exam.
  2. Bajram Krasniqi former member of this Committee, stated that record exist where he and other members of the Committee, harshly reacted against those that were added to the candidate list, whom did not complete the bar exam?

 

  • Investigations on allegations of the bar exam file falsification are conducted by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, subordinate of the Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi.

 

  1. Investigations on allegations of the bar exam file falsification are conducted by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, subordinate of the Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi, who for a short time has managed to work within the Office of Chief State Prosecutor and become Chief of Serious Crimes Department at the Basic Prosecution office in Pristina.
  2. Only two and a half years after he became part of the Kosovo Prosecutorial system, Kujtim Munishti was transferred from the prosecutor’s office of Gjilan, to the office of Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksandër Lumezi.

Through a decision signed on 28 April 2015, Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi had delegated to Kujtim Munishi powers of the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor. In addition to the powers that Munishi would have as prosecutor of Gjilan, according to the decision, he would also exercise other functions within the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor, including: drafting reports and other written documents. Prosecutor Munishi had performed other duties and responsibilities directly under the supervision of Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi. Prosecutor Munishi is now Chief of Serious Crimes Department at the Basic Prosecution office in Pristina.

  1. Munishi is investigating the case, under the monitoring of EULEX representatives. Foreign embassies are not involved in monitoring this case.
  2. Munishi is also the prosecutor of the case, in which the phone of the Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi was stolen from his home.

 

  • Prejudices and interventions in the process of investigations by politics, the government and the prosecutorial system itself.

 

  1. The Minister of Justice, Abelard Tahiri proposed Aleksandër Lumezi for Chair of the Bar Exam Committee. Throughout the history of this Committee, it appears that Chair of the Committee was the President of the Supreme Court of Kosovo. With the raise of the debate on allegations of the falsification of Aleksandër Lumez’s bar exam file Minister Tahiri made several statements, prejudging prosecution’s investigation, that they will end within a short time. Tahiri stated that he has demanded the involvement of internationals “and that he hopes that this case will end within this week, with a clear and credible investigation”. This constitutes political and executive interference on the prosecutorial system and investigations that are being conducted in this case. The Minister has no authority to have any information and responsibility in the investigative processes which are being conducted. Powers are separated and must be strictly observed. The fact that the minister speaks with authority regarding deadlines, is a pure policy interference in the investigation.
  2. On what are public statements of Minister Tahiri based on?
  3. Does it mean that Minister Tahiri is being informed by the Prosecution office or the Police regarding the course of the investigations?
  4. Kosovo Prosecutorial Council has completely prejudiced any suspicion raised regarding the falsified file of Aleksandër Lumezi’s bar exam. According to the Council, Lumezi has passed all appointment and verification filters in 2009-2010 by the Independent Judicial and Prosecutorial Committee. The presented facts have been evaluated by the Council as an attempt to damage the image of the Chief State Prosecutor and the prosecutorial system, so the Council asked from those who have raised these suspicions, to withdraw them publicly.
  5. The Association of Kosovo Prosecutors has fully prejudiced the allegations raised on the bar exam of Aleksandër Lumezi. This Association has evaluated the researches as a tendency to fade and repel the work of State Prosecutors, calling them prepared and fabricated researches. Furthermore, the Association has requested from local and international institutions to protect the State Prosecutor, providing full support to the Chief State Prosecutor, in his successful work.

 

Expectations from the investigation process to prove allegations on falsification of Aleksandër Lumezi’s bar exam file. KLI assesses that any result of investigations by the subordinate of Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi, will not be an independent, impartial and professional investigation, without having answers on these questions:

 

  1. Why does not appear on Lumezi’s personal file, the certificate issued by the court regarding the one-year internship, which is needed to present the bar exam?
  2. Why on Lumezi’s file is not the decision that allows him to take the bar exam?
  3. How is it possible for Aleksandër Lumezi to present the bar exam without completing a year of internship?
  4. How is it possible that Lumezi does not appear in the original book on presenting the bar exam?
  5. Why is Lumezi appearing on top of the white corrector on Zymer Krasniqi’s name?
  6. Why does Lumezi not appear in the original basic file?
  7. Why is Lumezi appearing on the basic file on top of the white corrector on on Zymer Krasniqi’s name?
  8. Why the recordings of Lumezi’s written exam are not within the basic file?
  9. Why is the whole content of the record on passing the bar exam in full contradiction with the law?
  10. How is it legally possible for Aleksandër Lumezi to remain in written re-examination on two basic exams, criminal and civil?
  11. If he has remained on written examination in civil and criminal (although legally and according to former Secretary of the Bar Committee Mr. Sahit Shala this is not possible), then why did he take the civil and commercial oral exams?
  12. Where has the record on the oral exam of the criminal law remain?
  13. How is it possible that the certificate on passing the bar exam by Aleksandër Lumezi to be issued on 25 April 1991, while in the record it is written that he completed the exam on 26 April 1991?
  14. How is it possible to issue a certificate one day before entering and completing the exam?
  15. Has the certificate been completed in accordance with legal procedures?
  16. How is it possible that the former District Secretary for Bar Exam and Administration, Gjorgje Aksiq, who has signed the certificate, to be part of the Committee, who asked Aleksandër Lumezi?
  17. How is it possible for the former District Secretary for Bar Exam and Administration, Gjorgje Aksiq, to appoint himself in the Committee, when such a thing is not allowed by law?
  18. How is it possible for the Committee to be established on 1990 by the Republican Secretary of Bar Exam and Administration, and be signed by Gjorgje Aksiq a year later?
  19. Has the Prosecution provided the decisions of the Republic of Serbia, including the contested one, which are in the Archive of Ministry of Justice in Serbia, not in Kosovo, to prove the allegations raised for falsification?
  20. Legally, until 1990 the certificates for Albanians were issued in Albanian language, for Serbs in Serbian with Latin alphabet, while after the revocation of Kosovo’s autonomy was applied the Serbian writing and alphabet in Cyrillic. Officials who worked that time, state that the certificates were not issued in two languages: Serbian and Albanian. This way they were not released even during the period of autonomy or after its revocation after 1990. How is it possible that the certificate of Lumezi was issued in two languages?
  21. Why is this case being investigated by the Prosecutor Munishi and investigators of financial crimes?
  22. Why is this case not being handled by the special unit regarding the investigation of falsified documents in the Kosovo Police?
  23. Is it done a graphological expertise of documents, which are manipulated, painted with white corrector, on top of which the name of Alexander Lumez was written?
  24. In order to increase public confidence in this investigation process, should such an independent, impartial and professional graphology expertise be done outside the country such as in the United States, the UK or Germany?
  25. The graphological examination of the certificate made public by the Chief State Prosecutor Aleksandër Lumezi himself, is a necessary measure to prove the antiquity of the letter and its writing (to be verified if it was written in 1991 or in 2000 or in another year)?
  26. Have comparisons of Lumez’s certificate been made with uncontested certificates of candidates who completed the bar exam in 1991?
  27. Are other certificates with the same format, design, alphabet and other similar details as Lumezi’s certificate?
  28. This expertise would highlight many of the allegations raised, based on the certificate presented by Chief State Prosecutor Lumezi himself, and the basic file on the passing of the bar exam, which is located in Kosovo Archive.
  29. The expertise would have proved at least three important aspects on the non-compliance of data:
    1. Firstly, it has to do with the re-examination and controversies regarding the cases in which the candidate has entered the re-examination on 26 April 1991?
    2. Secondly, it has to do with the date of finishing the bar re-examination, which, according to the published certificate by Lumezi himself, is dated 25 April 1991 and not a day later than this date?
    3. Thirdly, it has to do with the decision to allow Aleksandër Lumezit to take the exam. According to the testimony in Belgrade it appears that the decision was issued by the former District Secretary for Bar Exam and Administration, Gjorgje Aksiq. While in the basic file, it is said that the decision belongs to the Secretary of the Republic of Serbia, namely: “The committee established by the Decision of the Republican Secretary for Bar Exam and Administration no. 152-1568 / 90-12 dated 30.X.1990 “. The investigation must prove this.

 

  1. Have the UNMIK documents of the Legal Advisory Committee and the Former Special Representative of the General Secretary, Mr. Bernard Kouchner, for 1999/2000 been provided, in order to see the candidacy of Aleksandër Lumezi and his file?
  2. Are the records provided by members of the Legal Advisory Committee true, in which it is written that Aleksandër Lumezi did not have the bar exam when he applied for judges and prosecutors?
  3. Have the UNMIK documents been provided, which according to the members of the Legal Advisory Committee do exist and which testify that 31 candidates in 2000 were appointed as judges and prosecutors without the proposal of the Committee and without having the bar exam?
  4. Have the witnesses that are still alive been interviewed, the ones who have publicly stated that the recordings of 2000, according to which Aleksandër Lumezi did not have the bar exam, are correct (witnesses such as former Chair of the Committee Riza Smaka and the three members Adil Fetahu, Shaban Kajtazi and Bajram Krasniqi)?
  5. Why is the Basic Prosecution office in Pristina dealing with this case?
  6. Why is the closest subordinate of Aleksandër Lumezi, the prosecutor Kujtim Munishi dealing with this case?
  7. Why is this case not being handled by the Special Prosecution Office of the Republic of Kosovo, as it is suspected for falsification of the Chief State Prosecutor’s bar exam diploma?
  8. Why EULEX is not included in direct investigation in this case, in order to ensure the independence, impartiality and professionalism of investigations?