IKD: Prosecutor's Legal Decision Mestim Munich for His Chief's File, Alexander Lumez

Prosecutor Munishi, contrary to the law, has asked Kosovo Police to collect information, question witnesses and sequencing files concerning a criminal offence, which by law had reached the deadline for prescribing criminal prosecution.

Executive Roundup

No. The PPN-202/17, of the date, November 14th 2017, of throwing a criminal outcry, over allegations of manipulation of the state chief prosecutor Alexander Lumezi's jurisdictional law and the Kosovo Criminal Procedure Code, has been made in opposition to the applicable law, respectively.

Prosecutor Munishi, contrary to the law, has asked Kosovo Police to collect information, question witnesses and sequencing files concerning a criminal offence, which by law had reached the deadline for prescribing criminal prosecution.

According to the Criminal Code, at every stage of the criminal procedure, courts and other prosecution bodies are obliged under official duty to care for, take into account, and implement the prescription. Here the prescription is expressed according to the power of the law (ex lege), in all cases when prescription terms are expired.

According to the Criminal Procedure Code, police are forced to act only according to the prosecutor's legitimate demands. Kosovo police in this case have acted according to Prosecutor Munich's illegal authorisations.

In the concrete case, the Prosecutor of State's Office has never conducted criminal proceedings over the suspicion of carrying out the criminal work, defined with Article 2 of 34 by Chief Prosecutor Lumezi, respectively, as it was raised in public reporting.

Prosecutor Munich monitored by the prosecutor EULEX, despite the fact that it has conducted pre-penal procedure, at the same time in opposition to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code has questioned witnesses from Kosovo and Serbia, has seized files in the Kosovo Archive and the Ministry of Justice. The selection under the decision to cast a criminal record was made without a court order. The seizure has been illegally carried out, causing evidence gathered to be unacceptable at any stage later in court.

Prosecutor Munishi, still unable to initiate the procedure regarding the case, has referred the Kosovo Police to collecting information only in terms of criminal acts that were by law prewritten.

The judicial practice proves that, in such cases, in addition to evidence, processes, a crucial role in clarifying the truth plays the expertise of suspected documents as manipulated. The prosecutor has completely ignored this legal charge, prejudging the case. The same has never sought expertise over allegations of manipulated files.

Prosecutor Munich in the Act of Justice cites that they have submitted requests for access to documents concerning the appointment of prosecutors and judges to UNMIK and the OSCE. The same one without accepting any answers gets a plea for throwing a criminal record. This in judicial practice is unprecedented, leaving space to raise doubts that the purpose in this case has been the quick closure of the case rather than the dawn of the truth.

Four of the living witnesses of the Consultative Jury Commission, who had assessed the candidates for judges and prosecutors in 1999/2000, claim to the truth of the processes, according to which Alexander Lumezi did not have a jurisdictional exam. Moreover, according to these processes, the former head administrator of UNMIK, Bernard Kouchner, had decreed 31 candidates contrary to the law, including candidates without a law test. Prosecutor Munich has not received the opportunity to wait for UNMIK, O The SEU's to secure these files to whitewash the truth beyond any doubt.

The prosecutor Munishi has given evidence to Serbian officials who during the nine ' s were assigned through violent measures installed by the Yugoslav state apparatus.

Following in chronology are all the unlawful actions of prosecutor Kujtim Munishi for investigating the Lumez file.

Procedual and legal violations during prosecutor Kujtim Munich's handling of the case:

1. No. PPN-202/17, of the date, November 14th 2017, has authorized Kosovo Police to collect information concerning alleged criminal activity “Falsification of the official document”, Article 434, paragraph 1, criminal offense that was signed by law.
2. Prosecutor Munish has only taken 21 days to decide on this case from time to time has authorized the Police to collect information until the act of dropping criminal charges has been taken.
3. According to Prosecutor Munishi's authorisation, Kosovo Police on October 25th 2017, in the Kosovo Archives, have seized the law enforcement file of Chief State Prosecutor Alexander Lumez. On October 26, 2017, the Ministry of Justice also seized the books of a law test for 1986-1992.
4. The seizure was made without a court order. The seizure has been illegally carried out, prompting evidence gathered to be unacceptable in court.

Legal and procedural violations:

1. Under the ruling on throwing criminal charges, Prosecutor Munishi is only oriented on suspicion of committing criminal acts “Falsification of official document” by Article 434, paragraph 1 of the Republic of Kosovo Penal Code 1.[1]
2. Based on higher elaboration, the consumption of criminal acts under paragraph 1 of Kosovo's Article 434 of the Penal Code can only be carried out by responsible persons who have been authorised as official persons in the Judicature District Secretariat.
3. Chief or potential perpetrators of this criminal offence under the current Penal Code are sentenced in prison of six (6) months to five (5) years. ”
4. All actions by Prosecutor Munishi and the Kosovo Police, according to authorisations granted by Prosecutor Munishi, have been taken in opposition to the Kosovo Criminal Code, as in concrete case the prescription of the prosecution has reached a deadline regarding the prosecutor's authorised investigations, Kujtim Munishi.[2]
5. On the basis of the Kosovo Criminal Code, at every stage of the criminal procedure, the courts and other prosecution bodies, as well as the execution of criminal sanctions, are obliged, according to official duty, to take care of, take into consideration and implement the prescription. From here on, it is expressed according to the power of the law. (ex lege), in all cases when the spelling deadlines are expired.
6. The time it takes to make the prescription is called the default time. The length of the signing deadline is determined depending on the extent of the prior penalty for criminal work.
7. The Penal Code has established the prescription of prosecution, if ten (10) years from committing criminal acts punishable by more than five (5) years in prison; or five (5) from committing criminal acts punishable by more than three (3) years in prison.
8. If the allegations raised are that manipulation of the file was carried out in 1991, over 26 years have been spent on suspicion of committing criminal acts;
9. Whether the allegations raised are that manipulation of the file was carried out in 1999 or 2000, more than 16 years have been spent on suspicion of committing criminal acts.
10. In each option, Prosecutor Munich has authorised investigation into a criminal offence that has already been prewritten.
11. According to Article 82 of the Kosovo Criminal Procedure Code, the State Prosecutor, among other things, allegedly cast the criminal threat accepted by the police or other sources within 30) days, if by the report it is clear that the prescription deadline has passed.
12. Even with all the legal obligation stipulated under the Code, Prosecutor Munich and the Kosovo Police have collected information, seized material and questioned witnesses, in violation of the law.
13. According to Article 83 of the Kosovo Criminal Procedure Code, police are forced to act only according to the prosecutor's legitimate demands.
14. Kosovo police have acted according to Prosecutor Munishi's illegal authorisations.

Limited investigations by Prosecutor Munich:

1. Based on the decision signed by Prosecutor Kujtim Munishi himself, the same investigation has only limited the paragraph 1 of Article 434 of the Kosovo Criminal Code.
2. Prosecutor Munich has not authorized investigations even regarding allegations of committing a criminal offense defined in paragraph 2[3] of the 434th Kosovo Criminal Code article, where, as a suspect in public, it was State Chief Prosecutor Alexander Lumez.
3. The criminal work predicted by paragraph 2 exists when the official person or person responsible for his activity exploits official or business record, official registry, or official paperwork, as if it were true, or eliminates, conceals, damages, or causes no use in any other way to official document or businessman, official registry or official paperwork.
4. This confirms that Prosecutor Kujtim Munishi has never initiated investigations against Chief State Prosecutor Aleksander Lumezi, respectively, has not taken investigative action concerning the suspicion of carrying out the criminal act, defined in Article 2's paragraph 4, by Chief Prosecutor Lumezi.
5. Prosecutor Munishi, still unable to initiate the procedure regarding the case, has referred the Kosovo Police to collecting information only in terms of criminal acts that were by law prewritten.
6. Prosecutor Munich has not issued a verdict for the launch of investigations. The entire procedure led by prosecutor Munich in this case belongs to the prepenal procedure.
7. Even though Prosecutor Munich has not made a decision to start investigations, he has questioned a number of witnesses, seized files, documents from the Kosovo Archive and the Ministry of Justice in opposition to the law.
8. With these actions, Prosecutor Munich has violated the Penal Procedure Code provisions, violated the rights and freedoms of persons called witnesses, and seriously violated their judicial security.
9. According to Article 6 of the KPP, the criminal procedure is initiated only with the State Prosecutor's decision when there is suspicion based on a criminal offence.
10. According to Article 7 of the KPP, the court, State Attorney and Police who participate in criminal proceedings are forced to prove exactly and completely the facts, which are important for making the legal decision.
11. Even in spite of the fact that allegations raised in public have been linked to suspicion of forging the State Chief Prosecutor's exam, prosecutor Munishi has taken no action regarding the dawning of the truth.
12. During the entire treatment of this case, Prosecutor Munich, under the prosecution for throwing a criminal record, finds he had no suspects.
13. Article 136 KPP, it's an expert. Through expertise, it would be possible to become the expert on documents and manipulated state prosecutor files.
14. To that end, a competent field expert with experience or specialized training that is relevant and present would have to be assigned.
15. The expert must have analyzed the provided evidence.
16. During expertise, the expert must have used generally accepted practices in his field or have scientific or technical grounds.
17. The expert would have to draft a report in which the methods of analysis and conclusions are summed up.
18. None of these options that define the KPP, prosecutor Munich has exploited them.
19. None of the documents seized by Prosecutor Munich, without the court's orders, have been part of the expertise.
20. The case, handled by Prosecutor Munich, dates back to 1990,1991 until 2000.
21. The judicial practice proves that in such cases, in addition to evidence, processes, a crucial role in clarifying the truth plays the expertise of suspected documents as manipulated.
22. The prosecutor has completely ignored this legal charge, prejudging the case.
23. Prosecutor Munishi has given evidence to Serbian officials who during the nine years were installed through the violent measures of the Serbian state utility, respectively.
24. Djordje Aksic's swimming statement has witnessed nothing more than his signing on a document that was presented to him in Belgrade, Serbia. He has received no responsibility for the originality of the document, but has only confirmed that signing the released document belongs to him.

Defacting files contrary to law:

1. In the decision to cast criminal testimony, Prosecutor Munishi has authorised the Kosovo Police to sequencing the original files dealing with the law-test files in the Kosovo Archive and the Ministry of Justice.
2. In the ruling, nowhere is it mentioned that the classified files were taken in compliance with Article 112 of the Kosovo Criminal Procedure Code.
3. This article stipulates that items that can be temporarily seized are items that may be evidence during a criminal procedure, items or assets that have enabled the commission of criminal action, or items that are considered rich benefits earned by committing criminal acts and for which the law envisions sequentity.[4]
4. The seized files were taken without court ruling.
5. The seized files have been held for more than five days, without court ruling.
6. According to the Code, possessions, wealth, evidence or money may be subject to temporary restrictions under the order of the state prosecutor, which lasts no more than five days if authorised police officials learn about the item, property, evidence or money during the control or legal arrest.
7. According to the Code, the state prosecutor requests court order by the judge of the preliminary procedure.[5] That doesn't figure out what happened, so there's never been a court ruling.
8. The state prosecutor may ask the judge of the preliminary procedure to issue orders for the temporary selection of items, property, evidence or money.
9. Such demand should accurately check items, wealth, evidence, or money and describe how these items can be evidence of criminal acts, such as these items, riches, or money, can enable the commission of criminal acts, or such items, wealth or money constitute rich benefits earned by criminal labor.
10. Evidence taken in violation of criminal procedure provisions is unacceptable when the Code or other provisions of the law explicitly predict this.
11. The court cannot support its ruling on unacceptable evidence.

[1]According to paragraph 1 of this article, the criminal act exists when the official person, in the official business document, in the registry or document, marks false data or does not mark important data, or with the official seal confirms the official business document, the official registry, or the document containing false information, or allows the compile of the document to be compiled, but the document records with such false content.

[2]The prescribing of prosecution consists of the fact that because of the passage of the deadline that was set by law, there can be no criminal prosecution, and a person cannot be pronounced sentence for criminal offence. If prosecution is ongoing and if in the meantime it has come to prescribing, prosecution cannot be continued.

[3]Paragraph 2 of Article 434 of the Kosovo Penal Code stipulates that “the official person who exploits the official document, official registry or document as true in his business activity or who does nothing, hides, damages or in any other way of 156 makes the official document, the official registry, or the official document unusable, punishable by sentence from paragraph 1. of this mother. ”

[4]Note: The interpretation of this provision according to Kosovo Criminal Procedure Commentary: According to the provision of paragraph 1, three kinds may be temporarily seized: a) items that may be evidence during a criminal procedure, b) goods or assets that have enabled them to carry out criminal work, or c) items that are considered to be rich benefits earned by performing a criminal act. The conditions, which may be evidence in criminal procedure, are material evidence that has special regimes, if at the same time they are not items to be taken under the penal code. Such conditions are not necessarily to serve directly for argument purposes. It can be obtained, for example, the paperwork to enable experts to compare manuscript or signature and give thought to the authenticity of the incriminating text.

[5]The temporary selection of items, wealth, evidence or money is done at the order of the judge of the preliminary procedure. However, for items that are the subject of temporary restriction, which authorised police officials teach about in cases of legal control or arrest, temporary restrictions may be imposed by the state prosecutor for no more than five days. In addition, the state prosecutor requests orders for their temporary confirmation by the judge of the preliminary procedure. The prosecutor's request should accurately contain the items, wealth, evidence, or money, which he thinks should be temporarily seized, and should describe as such items can be evidence of criminal acts, how they enable them to commit criminal acts, or how they constitute rich benefits earned by criminal acts.