The Court of Appeal, through its decision of July 31, 2025, terminated the detention of five suspects - Sergeant Ibrahim Nela and police officers: Albian Retkoceri, Artidon Konxheli, Liridon Rrahmani and Endrit Beqiri, who are suspected of having committed the criminal offense of "negligent homicide" against 27-year-old Agon Zejnullahu in Lipjan.
The appeal has found that the risk of repetition of the criminal offense, on the basis of which the detention measure was imposed by the first instance court, is unfounded and has nothing to do with the circumstance in which the first instance court was called upon to consider "the strained relations between the family members of the injured party and the defendants".
According to the decision secured by the "Oath for Justice", with the approval of the appeals of the guardians of the five suspects, the Appeal changed the decision of the Basic Court in Pristina, Lipjan Branch, terminating the detention of the suspects to defend themselves in freedom.
The defense of the five suspects, lawyers: Valdet Zeqiri, Urim Vokshi, Blendi Bekteshi, Flamur Bllacaku and Besnik Berisha, had filed an appeal against the decision of the Foundation made in the relocation.
The complaints were filed due to essential violations of criminal procedure, failure to meet the legal conditions for ordering detention, and due to violation of the right to liberty and security guaranteed by the Constitution, proposing that the detention be terminated.
Meanwhile, the Appellate Prosecution Office had proposed in a submission that the defense attorneys' appeals be rejected as unfounded and the appealed decision be upheld.
After reviewing the appeal claims and analyzing the appealed decision, the Appeals Chamber found that there is a well-founded suspicion, while the special condition of the risk of repetition of the criminal offense has not been met.
Appellate findings on the reasonable doubt:
According to the Appeal, the first instance acted according to the recommendations of the Appellate Panel when returning the case for retrial, after analyzing the relevant evidence, especially the statement of eyewitness GB, who described every movement of the now deceased on the critical night, the attempt to calm him down, and the actions of the police officers.
The second instance also emphasizes that another piece of evidence that the Basic Court analyzed and evaluated in detail according to the recommendations of the Appellate Panel is the CD with the video recording showing the actions of the defendants.
"...the incriminating actions of the defendants are seen, as on the critical day they acted violently in violation of the internal police regulations, where the actions of each defendant are clearly seen," the decision states, among other things.
It states that it is suspected that as a result of the defendants' careless actions, Agon Zejnullahu died during the arrest.
According to the Appeal, where the testimony of witness GB and the video recording are compared, they match each other completely, as does the medical report of July 7, 2025 for the now deceased Agon, compiled by the doctor.
"... where it is established that the patient was seen in the presence of the police in a sitting position with his head down, handcuffed and being held by the police, and at the scene of the incident, during the physical examination, it was established that the patient was without signs of life, unconscious and without a pulse," the Appeals decision states.
This Court finds that this evidence is relevant to the case, reliable - since the way it was obtained is in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such has probative value for establishing the relevant facts in this case.
The Appeal also emphasizes that through this evidence, it has been possible to individualize each action of the defendants, which currently proves the standard of reasonable suspicion that they committed the criminal offense.
"This evidence, on the basis of which the actions of each defendant are individualized, convinces any objective observer that a criminal offense has occurred and the persons in question are very likely to have committed the criminal offense and that this suspicion is based on articulate evidence as elaborated in detail," the decision states.
The appeal has assessed the fact that the defendants were police officers trained in the most advanced training at the Police Academy of the Republic of Kosovo, trained in theoretical and practical aspects, practically exercised and especially in the aspect of the level to which force should be used when the need arises, and especially the increased care for the most vital parts of the human body, especially the head and neck.
"...despite this, the police officers, especially the defendant Artidon Konxheli, twice in a row put his knee on the neck, exceeding their authorizations by using force, while the other defendants, seeing an act of putting a knee on the neck by their colleague, take the actions as individualized above, so that all the defendants are aware that their actions may lead to the prohibited consequence, that is, it may be caused as a result of their actions, but they naively think that it will not be caused, or that they will be able to prevent its occurrence," the decision further states.
Therefore, the Appeal finds that there is a well-founded suspicion that the defendants are suspected of having committed the offense they are suspected of.
Appellate findings regarding the special basis for imposing the measure of detention:
The Appellate Panel finds that the Prosecution's request for detention was only in relation to the risk of recidivism. Consequently, it is stated that in this situation, the Basic Court could not overcome the Prosecution's request regarding the special condition - the element of risk of recidivism, which it approved.
According to the Appeal, when it came to the part of the concretization of the elements, namely their concrete materialization as a concrete circumstance for the risk of repetition of the criminal offense, the Basic Court has ascertained the fact of "strained relations between the family members of the injured party and the defendants", which according to the Appeal, results that the measure of detention was imposed to avoid this irritation and not due to the fact that any concrete circumstance has been proven for the defendants which as such proves the fact that if they are released, they will repeat the criminal offense.
In the specific case, the Appeal finds that none of the circumstances such as: the defendants' previous behavior with the environment and conditions under which they live or any other personal circumstances have been presented.
"Furthermore, this provision does not relate to the consequence of the criminal offense that was taken as a circumstance by the first instance court," the Appeals Court reasons.
The Court of Appeals assesses that in the specific case, it cannot be proven that the defendants have any personal characteristics that would be distinguished as such and would prove the risk of the defendants repeating the criminal offense, nor their previous behavior.
Further, it is stated that there is no evidence of any behavior outside the legal rules, nor the environment and conditions in which they live. The appeal emphasizes that since the police officers are suspended, they cannot in any way exercise the duties of police officers and that the finding that they may repeat the criminal offense appears to be hypothetical.
"Regarding the special basis - the risk of repetition of the criminal offense on the basis of which the detention measure was imposed by the first instance court, it is assessed to be unfounded and has nothing to do with the circumstance in which the first instance court was called upon - "strained relations between the family members of the injured party and the defendants" due to the fact that this circumstance is not required by the specific legal provision and as such is generalized without singling out any specific circumstance related to the defendants and which as such would have presented a risk of repetition of the criminal offense", the Appeal concludes.
Finally, the Appeal emphasizes that the mere suspicion that the defendants committed the criminal offense in the specific case is not sufficient to impose the measure of detention unless concrete circumstances are proven for the specific grounds for imposing the measure.
Initially, the Basic Court in Pristina - Lipjan Branch on July 9, 2025, ordered the five suspects to be remanded in custody for one month.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals - General Department on July 17, 2025 approved the appeals of the suspects' defense attorneys - Sergeant Ibrahim Nela and police officers: Albian Retkoceri, Artidon Konxheli, Liridon Rrahmani and Endrit Beqiri, and ex officio annulled the decision of the Foundation.
Even in the retrial, the Basic Court on July 23, 2025, had again decided that the suspects should remain in detention. An appeal was filed against this decision at the Court of Appeal on July 25, 2025.
"Oath for Justice" had reported exclusively on the initial decision of the Basic Court to impose pre-trial detention, the Prosecution File and the statement of the suspects to the Prosecution. /Oath for Justice
edition
t7 live
