Court makes that decision for the person who threatened to kill President Thaci

The prosecution claims that Peci, on March 26th of this year, has owned the president of the Republic of Kosovo, Hashim Thaci, in that way at the social network “Facebook”, from the person's account, Metom Boletini, has written a threatening message with this content as follows “Sod fanned the ceiling that we assembly is talking about partitioning Kosovo by Hashim Bro, let Hashi Broa know if we're still alive in the north. We don't allow the split, or Hashim Broya. Know that the jungle stable with ba.”,

For this, he is allegedly committed criminal work “

The Special Department of the Foundation Court in Pristina, with the appointment of March 27, 2020, has assigned the detention measure to indictee Mejim Peci, in length of a month.

Against this act, in the legal term, had filed complaints to the suspect's defender, attorney Nexhat Shaban, due to the essential violation of the penal procedure provisions of 187 paragraph 1 under paragraph 1.1.1 of 1.2.1 points and 1.2.3 of the Kosovo Criminal Procedure Code (KPPK) and the provision of Article 185 paragraph 2 of the Republic of Kosovo Penal Code (KPRK).

With a proposal that the Court of Appeals of Kosovo, approve as largely based on defence complaint, change the complaint so that defendants can be allowed to defend themselves in freedom, or that the defendants be assigned any alternative measures such as being submitted to the police station or the measure of house arrest. with the presence of the defendant during further implementation of the” criminal procedure, Apel's decision said.

Kosovo's Appeals Prosecutor in Pristina has proposed that the defendant's defenders' complaint be denied as unequivocal, while the complaining act is proven.

The Court of Appeals has found that the Qabanan attorney's complaint is unfounded.

“In complaint to defendant Metom Peci, lawyer Nexhat Shabani, points out that at the moment in this phase of the defence procedure it is difficult to present any evidence-based opinion because no evidence has yet been given. It is considered that conditions have not been met for criminal work and that criminal acts do not stand apart to the defendants because there must be a host of conditions such as serious intensity, so the defendant does not intend to intimidate the president.”, the Apel's decision said.

According to the second degree ruling, the defence has suggested that in the complaint ruling as the basis for the detention assignment, there is a risk of escaping and repeating criminal acts, and that the court has reasoned very briefly without offering the facts and circumstances that argue there are legal provisions. There is also no condition for escape because it is known that in Kosovo, but also in the world freedom of movement has been restricted because of the pandemic and that this circumstance is unable to escape from Kosovo.

Meanwhile, according to the Kosovo Court of Appeals assessment, the above complaints are groundless.

“In the complaining ruling, the preliminary procedure judge has directly argued the suspicion based that the defendant has been involved in carrying out the criminal work allegedly allegedly in the proposal, the condition for the appointment of detention, because the subject documents; the criminal prosecution; the initial report of the incident; the decision to ban the person arrested; the short report; the informational report confirming the verbal order for house control and watch; the process of getting the suspects; the initial process of the investigation; the decision to ban the local settlements; and other properties; the report of the journalist; the report confirming the verbalus order for house control; and the prosecution; the process of the person who has been taking this message to the suspects; who has been subjected to Kosovo's safety; and who has been subjected to the executional duty of Kosovo's command; and who has been subjected to the executional duty of Kosovo to the executional command; and the executional command; and the command of Kosovo's command; and the commandal command of the command of Kosovo is also sent to account.Sod fanned the ceiling that we assembly is talking about partitioning Kosovo by Hashim Bro, let Hashi Broa know if we're still alive in the north. We don't allow the split, or Hashim Broya. Know that the jungle stable with ba.”, the action taken by the defendants shows that there is a suspicion based on having committed the criminal work allegedly, and whether these facts will be argued or even the purpose of incriminating actions is a matter that will be revealed, appreciated and confirmed during the further procedure stages”, it is said in the act of placing Apel.

While, the first instance court, according to Appeals, has provided sufficient reason on the legal basis for which it has appointed the detention measure to the defendants and that it has acted justly when it has assigned the same measure according to the provision of Article 187 paragraph 1 under paragraph 1.1 of 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 of the KKP.

The Kosovo Court of Appeals has estimated that the first-instance court has found that because there is a doubt based on the fact that the defendant has committed a high-ranking criminal act, there is a legal basis for appointing him, because there are circumstances that rightly justify fears that, with the finding of indictees in freedom, the same could escape or escape, and thereby would be denied criminal responsibility, also the same acts of criminal acts that are grave in nature and could be pronounced fairly high punishment if convicted.

This court has estimated that the first-instance court has found legal reasons from Article 187 paragraphs 1 under paragraph 1.1 and 1.2.3 of the KKPPK to appoint detention for the defendant.

In view of the weight of the criminal act, the ways and circumstances of committing criminal acts, given that the work the defendant is allegedly suspected of is grave and also the consequence behind the acts that were caused by the defendants' actions, and that the defendant could repeat the criminal work for the fact that it is not the first time the criminal act is in conflict with the law and that the Kova police are allegedly criminally speaking that the defendant has been committed to several other criminal acts, respectively, on the basis of the same police allegedly, the indictment has also served the sentence of seven months in prison, which the hearing has stated in the custody of the legal prosecution, thus says the verdict of the court's procedure.

For the high-profile reasons, this court has estimated that the first-degree court acted directly when the defendants have assigned the detention measure, because other measures made by Article 173 The KKPPRK's, they are insufficient enough to ensure the presence of the defendant in the procedure, in the normal flow of criminal procedure and in preventing the conduct of the other criminal work, so with the aim of successfully implementing criminal procedure, the detention assignment is considered necessary, while complaints by defenders and defendants were denied as unloaded.