Council of Criminal Court has no legally defined deadline for the review of the indictment in the case “Puch” when to enter plea and decide whether to put it in further procedure and schedule a trial or will return it to the prosecution, as requested by the defense.
Although some media on 1st of June, after the session of the Council, informed that the decision will be known in ten days, the Basic Court Skopje 1 stated for META that “the council doesn’t have a deadline until when it will have to decide, and the 15 days on which the media informed refers to the period in which the court must schedule a hearing upon receipt of the objection against the indictment.”
Hence it is uncertain whether even during the summer Gruevski and Zaev will sit in a courtroom for the trial of the century, as were some of the forecasts.
Moreover, as of 15th of July the holidays for judges begin, which lasts until 15th of August.
Otherwise, at the session for the assessment of the indictment, which was held on 1st of June, prosecutor Zlatko Bikovski said there was sufficient evidence for Zoran Verusevski, his wife Sonja Verusevska, Zoran Zaev, Branko Palifrov and Gjorgji Lazarevski, to be trialed for espionage, unauthorized recording and violence against representatives of the highest state authorities.
On the other hand, the defense lawyers objected to this request, and contested the evidence of the indictment for all three crimes, namely that:
- The prosecution does not have evidence that already convicted Zvonko Kostovski and Lazarevski were illegally tapping by Verusevski’s order
- That it is technically impossible to do that without leaving a trace in the system
- The prosecution didn’t explain exactly how much people were tapped, which of their conversations were tapped and the time period
- The indictment did not specify for what foreign country, service or person the wiretapping was reportedly performed
- Most of the evidence that had been provided with special investigative measures (SIM) can be used, since it leaked to the public
- Wiretapping and interception of Zaev’s electronic communications has been done illegally, since the order for the use of special investigative measures was issued by Judge of the Criminal Court, not of the Supreme Court, as required by law for such offenses
- The claim of the prosecution that Zaev jeopardized the Constitution and the security of the state is marginal because Zaev’s request for technical government and early elections is not violence against Gruevski, but legitimate political demand of the opposition
- That the absurdity of the charges is also emphasized by the fact that Zaev was invited and attended a session of the Security Council after the events in Kumanovo, although he is prosecuted for a felony.
