Six police members who beat up Vucici's bodyguards reduced their sentence

The College of the Court of Appeals, consisting of two local judges and a EULEX judge, led by the local judge, issued the April 26th 2017 trial for the PAK 220/16 case.

This court has modified previous sentences through this act. The criminal case for which complaints have been filed involved an incident that occurred on January 8, 2013. A group of 11 members of NJOS were scheduled to make conveying the 10 detainees of ethnic Serb affiliation from Pristina's Pristina Pristina Pristina Pristina Pristina detention centre to the Anti-Affliction Court.

The detainees were gathered in the reception space of the Para-burging Center and sent to the parking lot. Until they were sent there, several detainees were hit and kicked. The detainees were then slapped and hit in vehicles while being sent to the Court of Countercument. Moreover, some detainees had been hit and kicked into the Court of Countermand.

Eleven defendants were charged with 19 counts of prosecution for acts of assault, threat and fraud during the exercise of official duty or public authorisation.

Pristina's Constitutional Court found 6 defendants guilty of several counts of assault, threat and ill treatment during the exercise of official office or public authorisations. They had been acquitted of the remaining charges, since they had not been testified beyond the reasonable suspicion that they had committed these criminal acts. The other five defendants had been acquitted of all charges.

The defendants have complained to the indictment at the Court of Appeals, claiming, among other things, that the offense of the attack is involved in the criminal offence of Mistreatment during the exercise of official duty or public authorisations. The Pristina Constitutional Court Act had been modified and the defendants were acquitted of prosecution of the attack's criminal act while their sentences were reduced in line.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the criminal offence during the exercise of official duty or public authorisation includes the offense of the attack, because both criminal acts basically have the same act of mistreatment and the application of force against one's nature. Also, as punishment for the defendants, the exercise of public administration functions or public services was prohibited. However, the Court of Appeals estimated that the pronunciation of this additional sentence was not necessary to achieve the purpose of criminal punishment.

Therefore, the supplementary sentence of stopping the operation of public administration or public services was lifted for all 6 defendants. The PSRK complaint was rejected.