Pristina, 15 May 2007, published in the Koha Ditore The Kurti Case: Law or Politics? By Julie Chadbourne Thursday evening, six hours short of three months, an international judge in Kosovo decided to release Albin Kurti, the leader of the Self-Determination Movement, from pre-trial detention, placing him instead under house arrest. Less than twenty-four hours later Mr. Kurti had violated the order for house arrest and is back in detention. The events of the past several days have increased the International Helsinki Federation’s pre-existing concerns about the legality of Mr. Kurti’s detention and the impartiality of decision-making in the U.N.-administered province of Kosovo. Regardless of one’s personal views on Mr. Kurti and his movement or the politics of the moment vis-à-vis Security Council proceedings on Kosovo’s future, rule of law must apply to his detention as it would in any other case. Mr. Kurti was arrested and placed in detention following protests on February 10, which ended in the death of two persons. The protests were the most violent in recent years in Kosovo. Vetevendosje activists were calling for rejection of then-recent proposals over the status of Kosovo, which they say are not in favor of the majority ethnic Albanian community in Kosovo (i.e., more than 90% of the population base). The Self-Determination Movement leader is suspected of committing the crimes of calling for resistance, organizing and leading a crowd that committed a criminal offense, acting in a manner that endangered United Nations personnel, and preventing officials from performing their duties. Mr. Kurti’s release and re-arrest less than a day later raises questions about the order for house arrest and its restrictive nature in the first place. The effect of strict house arrest, even if reviewed on a regular basis, can amount to essentially the same deprivation of liberty as extended detention—just in a more comfortable locale. Legal principles require that pre-trial detention only be evoked where strictly required, and in consideration of the rights of the accused. The most lenient option available to achieve the purpose of pre-trial detention—ensuring successful conduct of pre-trial investigations—should be used. In this case, the judge’s order for house arrest required not only that Mr. Kurti not leave his apartment premises without express permission of the Court, but that he not have any contact—visits or phone calls—with anyone from the Self-Determination Movement or the media. Knowing Mr. Kurti’s views and general pattern of behavior it is hard to imagine that he would have complied with any such order. One has to wonder what purpose house arrest serves when in practical fact it becomes another mode for justifying further detention. This question becomes particularly important given reports of irregularities in the judicial procedure leading to the order for house arrest. From our discussions with interlocutors on the ground, it appears that not only has there been little legal basis for the extended detention in the first place, but that the proceedings that led to Mr. Kurti’s strict house arrest could be interpreted as favoring the prosecution. In particular, the Federation is concerned about reports that the international judge approached the prosecution after the hearing—and in the absence of either Mr. Kurti or his lawyer—to clarify what the prosecution would like to recommend. The Helsinki Federation is further concerned in this case that the presiding judge has refused the group—an international human rights monitoring organization—permission to visit Mr. Kurti during his detention. The Helsinki Federation and its forty-six member committees have long been engaged in detention monitoring activities as part of its human rights work. The judge has failed to answer formal requests for reconsideration and explanation of his determination that in strict accordance with the law this group is not the “kind of organization” that qualifies for such visitation. While the International Helsinki Federation welcomes the decision of the same judge to grant another human rights monitoring organization permission to visit Mr. Kurti on a monthly basis, we are concerned about the arbitrariness of this decision and question whether it sufficiently serves to ensure proper monitoring. In response to the Federation’s request, Ministry of Justice officials in Kosovo notified the Federation that they cannot provide access to Mr. Kurti because he is a “category A” detainee and exclusively under the jurisdiction of the international community—i.e., the international judge in the case. Alarmingly, Mr. Kurti’s lawyer had not been informed of his client’s categorization, raising further concerns about the application of the “equality of arms” principle in Kosovo’s U.N.-administered courts. (The idea behind equality of arms is that the defense and the prosecution operate on the same playing ground so-to-speak because they both have access to the same information in the case before them.) The Helsinki Federation and its partners in the region will continue to monitor developments in this case. Julie Chadbourne is the representative in Kosovo for the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. TOP