The hearing where the defense of Ema Çoku, Fatime Kryemadhi and Pirro Xhixho was expected to be addressed did not take place as planned. The reason was the absence of Çoku’s lawyers, which left the defendant without representation in the courtroom and forced the court to postpone the proceedings.
What happened in the courtroom
During the verification of the parties, Ema Çoku was present in the courtroom, but her lawyers were not. Çoku’s defense attorneys had submitted a request for a postponement, arguing that it was impossible for them to attend the hearing.
Fatime Kryemadhi was not personally present, while her lawyer, Esmeralda Rama, was in the courtroom. Pirro Xhixho appeared together with his lawyers.
SPAK’s position and the debate over continuing the proceedings
SPAK prosecutor Sotir Kllapi opposed the reasoning presented by Çoku’s defense, describing the request by her lawyers as unjustified.
On the other hand, it was also noted in the courtroom that the defendant had not previously been an obstacle to the process. Lawyer Klodian Skënderaj said the hearing should continue and that another date should be set.
Why the hearing was postponed
In the end, the court decided not to hold the hearing under conditions in which Ema Çoku was without defense counsel. This element was considered decisive in making the normal continuation of the process impossible.
In the reasoning given in the courtroom, mention was also made of the fact that August is considered a holiday month for judges, which directly influenced the setting of the next date as well.
New date set by the court
According to the decision announced at the hearing, the court set the next date for September 14 at 1:00 p.m.
The postponement due to the absence of defense counsel once again brings into focus the problem of procedural delays in court proceedings, where prolongation is often caused not by examination of the merits but by formal obstacles in the courtroom.
For now, the process remains suspended until the September hearing, while today’s decision shifted the discussion from the substance of the case to the minimum conditions for holding it.
In practice, another hearing ended without entering into the merits, with the court choosing postponement in the face of the lack of defense for one of the defendants.