Manipulated file of the Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksander Lumezi

Tuesday 21 November, 2017

flamurat-per-web

Executive summary

The suspicions raised in public regarding the falsification of bar exam of the Chief State Prosecutor (CSP), Aleksander Lumezi, based on the applicable legislation in Kosovo, enters into high-profile cases. According to this legislation, high profile cases should be handled by the Special Prosecution Office of the Republic of Kosovo (SPRK), which in this case has not happened. SPRK during all the time the procedures have been conducted in this case has remained in complete silence. Such an approach to the public doubts the independence, impartiality and integrity of this prosecution. This case investigated and closed for 21 days in an unlawful manner should be investigated by the SPRK. Otherwise, this case was led by the prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, also Chief of the Department for Serious Crimes in the Basic Prosecution in Pristina.

The whole process of preliminary investigations by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi is unlawful. Prosecutor Munishi has begun to be privileged since the arrival of Aleksander Lumezi in charge of the State Prosecution (SP). Munishi, from the first instance prosecutor, has advanced in the third level with specific duties and direct responsibility of Chief Prosecutor Lumezi within the Office of the CSP. All this rise was done illegally, as Munishi was advanced at the time when it was only with an initial mandate. Although this case under the legal competencies had to be investigated by the SPRK, the Prosecutor Kujtim Munishi has decided to investigate the file of his boss, Chief Prosecutor Lumezi. But any action taken by Munishi is in violation of the law. He has authorized police investigators that in the preliminary procedure to gather information’s, question witnesses inside and outside the Republic of Kosovo, and seize files without a court decision and all this for a criminal offense, which according to the applicable law in Kosovo had long since reached the statutory limitation period of criminal prosecution.

The Prosecutor Kujtim Munishi, in the concrete case, never conducted criminal proceedings regarding suspicions of falsification of bar exam of the Chief State Prosecutor Aleksander Lumezi, respectively did not undertake investigative actions regarding the suspicion of committing the criminal offense set forth in paragraph 2 of Article 434, which as suspect publicly denounced the Chief State Prosecutor, Aleksander Lumezi. So, prosecutor Munishi, unlawfully investigated a prescribed criminal offense, for which he himself should be subject to investigation, while fully amnestying any opportunity to investigate his chief, Chief Prosecutor Lumezi. The latter was publicly denounced as suspected of falsifying the bar exam, so prosecutor Munishi clearly noted that he had made the amnesty of the chief, for reasons that only he could know but which are in violation of the law.

In preliminary investigation, prosecutor Munishi, a priori has amnestied raised suspicions that Aleksander Lumezi has falsified the bar exam. The whole investigation was based on the evidence of witnesses unlawfully; his investigation had no suspect, and seized files without a court order and did not have any graphology expertise as well as other document expertise which would substantiate suspicions of falsification in manipulated documents: Closure of the case is based entirely on the testimonies of former Serbian officials assigned to positions at the time of violent measures in the 1990s, after the abolition of Kosovo’s autonomy, while the testimony of lawyer Betim Shala proves nothing because it is a supposition, which in criminal proceedings is not considered a evidence…

Prosecutor Munishi did not conduct the evidence administration provided by witness Adil Fetahu. He was a member of the Legal Advisory Commission, who interviewed Aleksander Lumezi in 2000 when he had applied for a judge and a prosecutor. He writes in the record that Aleksander Lumezi did not have the bar exam. Another report of this Commission points out that in 2000, former UNMIK chief Bernard Kouchner had decreed 31 candidates outside the Commission’s proposals, where the candidates without bar exam had been decreed, so that they did not have the bar exam in question. None of this evidence, that is the record of 2000, was not administered by the Prosecution.

Moreover, it remains unclear how the prosecutor Munishi hastened to close the case without providing UNMIK and OSCE files, which could clarify whether Aleksander Lumezi had a bar exam in 2000, and whether Aleksander Lumezi is one of the 31 candidates decreed without bar exam or if he had it at that critical time. This in court practice is unprecedented, leaving space to raise doubts that the purpose in this case was the quick closing of the case and not clearing the truth.

In this preliminary investigation process Munishi did not have any suspects, but only witnesses. In Kosovo as a witness were questioned: Sahit Shala, Radislav Dimitrijevic, Aleksandër Lumezi, Riza Smaka, Adil Fetahu, Enver Hasani, Betim Shala and Zymer Krasniqi.

While without a decision to initiate investigations and in violation of the Law on International Legal Co-operation, has taken evidence and witnesses outside the official legal path. In this regard, he has taken as evidence a notarized act of Djordje Aksic, who appears as a former member of the Bar Examination Commission in 1991 and as a former Provincial Secretary at the time of violent measures in Kosovo. Meanwhile, he questioned Miladin Kostic, also a former member of the Commission for the Bar Examination in 1991.

None of these evidences confirms the passing of the bar exam, as long as the file is completely manipulated with a white spray on Zymer Krasniqi’s file and does not have a graphology expertise (and other relevant expertise) for it.

Raised doubts in the public that Aleksander Lumezi has falsified the bar exam and the process of preliminary investigations conducted by prosecutor Kujtim Munishi was overwhelmed with prejudices and interference from politics, the government and the prosecutorial system itself. Minister of Justice Abelard Tahiri has made several statements, prejudging the prosecution’s investigation that they will end in the short term. This constitutes interference of country’s politics and executive over the prosecutorial system and investigations that were underway in this case.

On the other side, Kosovo Prosecutorial Council has completely prejudiced any suspicion raised about the falsified file of Aleksander Lumez’s bar exam, requesting the withdrawal of charges and writings on the subject. Similarly, the Kosovo Prosecutors Association (KPS) has also defended their supervisor, which has completely prejudiced the raised allegations about the Lumezi’s bar exam.

This case is said to be monitored by EULEX, who stated that EULEX prosecutor Eva Korpi, who has monitored the case, is satisfied with the independent and impartial investigation. However, the EULEX Mission does not declare whether this is the official position of this mission, or only the position and opinion of the prosecutor Corpi. In addition, most of the interviewed witnesses stated that during the interrogation they had no English translation and that this role was occasionally played by the prosecutor Munishi himself.

The current investigation into criminal proceeding turns out to be null and void. In this regard, in order to clarify the truth and the development of an independent, impartial, impartial, fair and professional investigation process, it is recommended that in accordance with the constitutional and legal obligations these raised suspicions in public be investigated by the Special Prosecution of the Republic (SPRK).  All legal conditions for investigating this case by EULEX are met and it is recommended that the investigation be conducted through the establishment of a team of EULEX prosecutors with US, British and German prosecutors.

The KLI recommends that the SPRK to require expertise on all documents manipulated with sprayed and other documents suspected of being falsified. As far as this case is concerned, the KPC should, in accordance with the applicable law, take measures regarding the suspension of the Chief State Prosecutor Aleksander Lumezi, while the SPRK and the Disciplinary Prosecutor Office should analyze the ruling for dismissal of the criminal report by the prosecutor Munishi, and to investigate whether the law and procedures under the legislation in force have been applied during the handling of this case.