Third time the accused is acquitted of involvement in Syria's wars

The judge, Judge Becir Kaluldra, has declared this act unequivocal evidence proving that the same one has committed criminal work.

We twice released the accused Leunis. I think we've given very clear reasons for his release. It's right or not, someone else appreciates it. We've been part of three trials in this criminal case, we have an indictment device saying they've been attached to the terrorist organisation. SIS and nowhere, neither in the record, nor in the statement of Blerim Syla, which cannot be proof alone, nor in the statements of protected witness, has there never been said a terrorist organisation. The SIS, never has it been the defendant's move to Syria, exercise there”, Kaluldra said during his reasoning.

He also said that in all the charges when the terrorist group was not correctly confirmed in other cases, the accused had been released, so according to him, they could not assess that the group had been terrorist, much less I SIS or Al Nustra.

“Since it has not been proven by elements of criminal activity there is no criminal responsibility”, Judge Kaluldra has said.

By contrast, in this hearing, witness Blerim Syla, who according to Judge Kaluldra, according to information from the courts, is located abroad, is thus unable to secure the same in this judicial examination.

Meanwhile, regarding witness Syla, the special prosecutor, Father and Dema, has proposed to the court that since the same was interviewed by the police on July 6, 2015, because of the economy of the procedure this statement is considered read.

And the defender of the accused Frangu, lawyer Armend Shkoza, has rejected prosecutor Dema's proposal, arguing that he has never been given the chance to challenge this statement before.

The panel, led by Judge Becir Kaluldra, has approved the prosecutor's proposal Dema, while accused Frangu over his defence, has said he wants to seize the right not to declare itself in this case.

Until, the special prosecutor in his final address demands that the accused Frangu be found guilty and adds that witness statement Syla confirms that the defendant committed the criminal act, the defence has said this witness is a extinguisher.

Lawyer Shkoza has added that the protected witness, who has testified at the previous session, has only proved that the prosecution as representative of this indictment is based on evidence of non-liberal and discredited witnesses.

Otherwise, the Constitutional Court in Pristina, for the first time, on February 27, 2016, the accused Frangu, had acquitted him of terrorism charges, but the Court of Appeals had approved the SPRK's complaint, turning the case into a retrial after concluding that the first-instance court had not provided crucial facts when it took a free trial.

Apeli, had concluded that the trial was inconsistent with himself because according to her, the first degree was not inconsistent that the accused was in Syria, but the release of the accused had given him the basis for not knowing which terrorist organisation Frangu has met.

However, even after the return of the course to the retrial, the first - degree court, again on January 8, 2019, had acquitted Fran of terrorism charges.

Judge Becir Kalludra, in his brief reasoning of this act, had said that it was not a contradiction that accused Frangu had gone to Syria, but, according to him, had not proved the central element of the work that the accused had been part of a terrorist group.

According to him, the prosecution had not produced sufficient evidence for the accused to be found guilty and that at the time allegedly the accused committed a criminal act had not been in effect the law, which already sanctioned and moved to Syria.

After Frangu was acquitted for the second time, The SPRK had again filed complaints against this indictment because of substantial violations of the Penal Procedure Code provisions.

These P claims The SRK was given the basis of the Court of Appeals, which on November 25, 2019, had turned the case for the second time into retrial.

According to Appeal, the court in the first instance in the retrial should eliminate all uncertainties about what was the reason for the accused's trip to Syria, if he had not been attached to any terrorist group, because according to Apel, he had exercised 15-17 days and had been armed.

The Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Kosovo (PSRK), the indictment against Frango, had filed on February 25th 2016, with the claim that the same had committed criminal work “organising and participation in the terrorist group”, from Article 143 paragraph 2 of the KP.

According to the indictment compiled by prosecutor Faik Halili, Frangu following the preliminary agreement with Blerim Syla, on November 3, 2014 through Pristina's airport had gone to Turkey, where from Istanbul it was said that they had first gone to the Turkish town of Hatay, and from there to another city of Turkey near the Syrian border, named Rehyanli.

They allegedly crossed the border from the city mentioned and entered Syria, where they were attached to the terrorist organisation “ISIS”, while after a long stay in Syria through the Han-Elez border had returned to Kosovo.