The prosecution does not open investigation into the tragic death of 22-year-old Vushtrri, although he was at work

In a written response to the prosecution in Mitrovica, he said that the case was not opened at all after the prosecution concluded that death was accidental while they did not give details about whether the employee had a job contract or the equipment he was working on were right to use.

Calexo.com asked the prosecutor if he proved that the employee was trained to work with the generator and so if the device was in order at the time of the fire, but the answer was that the criminal procedure was not initiated at all.

The case in question has not been initiated by criminal procedure. Following the appearance of independent electrical expert and the interview of witnesses in the case, the prosecutor has concluded that there are no elements of the criminal act, as it is suspected that up to this accident has resulted from the care-freeness of the deceased during the filling of the “generator, reported in the prosecution's response.

22-year-old Erzen Hyseni died two days ago of injuries sustained during a fire incident about a week ago in one of the Vushtrri coffees. He was filled with fire at the time he was filling the fuel generator.

Dying had also taken its toll on the chairman of the Power of Xhafer Tahiri.

Weeks ago Prizren's prosecutorial has filed an indictment against the owner of a Styropor company, since the prosecutor claims the employee was not well trained to care for the equipment and the device had no warning signs of danger.

Prizren's prosecution claims that the owner of Prizren's Lubisdzhda plant is responsible for the company's death of employees.

According to the prosecution on June 30, 2018, this factory had lost its life as a seasonal worker S.A. While death had come because machines had no proper protection.

The prosecution in a statement has clarified that the late man was working on the engine of recycling crop waste without having the proper training of the machine.

The incident explains that the employee had tried to throw a sack into this car when he was pulled out of the car whose printing had resulted fatal to the employee.

“In this way, accused A.B., as a legal person and as a responsible person for the workplace's security and health, does not act in accordance with the provisions or technical rules on measures for workplace security, and with these actions there is a well-based suspicion that he committed criminal work “Inspection, damage or removal of protective equipment and endangerment at the post of”, from Article 367, paragraph 1 with paragraph 3 and CPRC paragraph 7 <x> in the prosecution's announcement.