here - Humanitarian Law Center/Fond za humanitarno pravo

collaborating witness “Božur 50” as it was vague and non-specific, lacking precise dates and
contradictory to the testimonies of numerous other witnesses.
The presiding judge, Snežana Nikolić Garotić noted that 206 witnesses had been heard during the
trial, of whom 179 were injured parties, who had provided detailed accounts of what had
happened to them, specifying the time, the place, the manner in which the offences were
committed, and gave descriptions of the perpetrators. Their testimonies further discredited the
testimony given by the cooperating witness ‘Božur 50’.
The court also commented on the suffering of the injured parties and their ordeal, adding that the
TRZ had paid little regard to their suffering by hampering the chances of uncovering the truth in
this case.
Lastly, the presiding judge added that nobody in her courtroom had been threatened, referring to
allegations in a TRZ press release that the accused, Agush Memishi, had threatened the Deputy
War Crime Prosecutor.
Analysis of proceedings
During the retrial, the first-instance court considered the evidence according to instructions given
by the Court of Appeal.
This retrial was marked by unprofessional and unethical conduct from some of the defense
lawyers, as well as by a TRZ press release containing a false allegation that the accused Agush
Memishi threatened the Deputy War Crimes Prosecutor during his closing argument. The court,
as the dominus litis 144 of proceedings, ought to have been harsher on defense lawyers and
adequately punish their improper behaviour. Also, the court should have, within the scope of the
powers conferred on it by law, responded in a more prompt and transparent manner to the TRZ
press release containing the said allegations.
On 7 September 2012, the TRZ gave incorrect information to the general public that Agush
Memishi had threatened Miroljub Vitorović, Deputy War Crimes Prosecutor. During the closing
argument of the deputy prosecutor on 7 September 2012, Memishi noted that the TRZ had
offered him the chance to become a “collaborator with justice” which would give him an
opportunity to incriminate one of the co-accused and thus get revenge on him for some
unresolved issues between the two of them and the harm the co-accused had caused to him and
his family. Memishi declined the offer. On that occasion, Memishi said that although he had
never committed any criminal act, he would take revenge on his co-accused, on his release from
detention, and that if not him, someone else in the Memeshi family would do it, because many
members of the Memishi family live in Preševo. None of the words that Memishi said were
directed at the deputy war crimes prosecutor. This can be easily verified as all of the court
144 Lat. master of proceedings.
65