Prishtinë, March 5, 2015 – Constitutional Court today has published a statement for the public regarding Ombudsperson’s statement as per the grounded allegations that the President Enver Hasani and the reporting Judge Arta Rama-Hajrizi have deceived the public by keeping in secret  the fact that judge Carolan had recused himself from deliberations and decision for this case.

Constitutional Court claims its “decisiveness in accomplishing of constitutional liabilities, regardless pressure and extortion addressed”.

The Ombudsperson would like to inform the public and point out, that upon official reiterating requests for thorough clarification of the given situation, President Hasani and judge Rama-Hajrizi have refused to cooperate with the Ombudsperson and disclose all proves and evidence on their disposal regarding this case. Their refusal to cooperate with the Ombudsperson comprise violation of Article 132, paragraph 3 of the Constitution which stipulates that “Every organ, institution or other authority exercising legitimate power of the Republic of Kosovo is bound to respond to the requests of the Ombudsperson and shall submit all requested documentation and information in conformity with the law.”

Prior to inform the public with proves available, the Ombudsperson has provided the judges with all opportunities to explain this issue within regular cross- institutional communication. But, Constitutional Court considered more important to justify itself with limited explanations and charges for extortion rather than to abide with its constitutional responsibility to respond to Ombudsperson inquires. The Ombudsperson points out that no response has been addressed to him from the President Hasani and judge Rama-Hajrizi as well as other two international judges Almiro Rodrigues and Snezhana Botusharova – Doicheva, regardless letters in succession addressed to them.

Constitutional Court claims in its public statement that “request for recusal from a deliberation has been submitted by Judge Robert Carolan one day before 10 days period elapsed but it arrived at the Office of the President of the Court after the decision was published. Therefore the judge has not followed the required procedure by law“

Claim provided by the Constitutional Court actually does not explain anything since it is based on inaccuracy and leaves a lot of question without answer. Considering the evidence in our possession as accurate, it is not true that judge Carolan’s request came just one day before the ten- days period elapsed. An internal Constitutional Court’s communication dated on November 12, 2014 posted on Ombudsperson’s Institution web page, judge Carolan addressed his request to two Constitutional Court officials referring to a letter through which he has recused himself from deliberation and decision of the Referral KO 155/14. Since the recommendation of the reviewing panel on inadmissibility of the case has been sent to the full composition of the Court on November 4, 2014, this means that Judge Carolan has demanded to be recused at least two days prior to ten days period ending, which was November the 14^th. But, instead of reviewing inquiry of Judge Carolan for recusal, Constitutional Court decided to publish its Ruling on November 13, 2014, one day before ten days period elapsed.

Therefore, the Ombudsperson considers that even after public pronouncement by the Constitutional Court, many issues have remained unclear:

(1)   Apart two officials to whom judge Carolan has sent an e-mail on November 12, 2014 who else within the Constitutional Court was aware of Judge Carolan’s inquiry; recusal from the case procedure prior the Ruling has been published?

(2)   Have two officials made known to anyone else the fact that judge Carolan has requested his recusal from the case procedure?

(3)    Why a day after judge Carolan’s e-mail was sent on November 12, Constitutional Court has decided to accelerate publishing of the Ruling and not waiting expiring of ten days period?

(4)   Why Judge Carolan had to come in person on February 13, 2015 to submit his letter of February 2, 2015 to the Ombudsperson Institution?

Informing the public regarding this evidence by the Ombudsperson, after official requests for explanation of evidence that the Constitutional Court has deceived the public in order to conceal the lack of quorum, is not extortion. This is considered accountability in a healthy democratic society.