11 years after the assassination of Naim Hajrizi, the trial in the case of “Cekic” will start again from zero

This is because the Court of Appeals has restored this case to a first degree retrial.

The Constitutional Court in Pristina, on January 21, 2020, had convicted it of criminally committing serious murder, Gezim Retkocerin. The same one, he had been sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Retkocer, who is accused of killing Naim Hajriz, in the pronounced sentence, will also be counted as past time in detention from April 30th 2009 onward. The same has been confiscated from a brand car “Golf 2”.

While the other indictee in the case, Osman Spahiu, was convicted of criminal activity “of assisting leaders following the conduct of criminal work” and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Since Spahiu had been in custody from 2009 until January 21, 2020, the same has already held the sentence pronounced against him.

The accused Osman Spahiu was initially charged with criminal activity “grave murder”, but after prosecutor Fikrije Feyzullahu at the January 10th 2020 session, had re-qualified the criminal act in “the appointment of deputy leaders following the conduct of the criminal act”, he had even admitted guilt, reports “The Vorim for Justice<5>.

Disgusted with the height of the conviction pronounced against accused Retkocer, the prosecution and the representative of the damaged party, Berat Tmava, had complained at the Appeals, from which they sought to rig the sentence.

On the other hand, the defendant's defense had demanded that the accused Retkocer release him or that the subject be restored to retrial.

Regarding these complaints, Appeals ' college had held the session on July 15, 2020. After reviewing the complaints, the college, consisting of judges Tonka Berishaaj, Driton Muharremi and Vaton Durguti, has decided to approve as based on the complaint of the defendant's defense Retkoceri, Kosovo lawyer Kelmendi, while the prosecution and the damaged party complaints have deemed them unhurt for now.

The Supreme Court of Appeals has examined the first degree act, the defendant's defense complaint, as well as the subject's papers, and estimates that the first degree act in this case is again involved with essential violations of the penal procedure's provisions, as well as error and incomplete confirmation of the fact” in the Apel Act.

According to Apel's judgment, since this subject had once again become a first - degree retrial, the latter, according to Apel, had largely ignored instructions given by the second - degree court.

According to Apel's assessment, the first degree has provided no reason for the crucial facts, following the contradiction between the device and the bias as a result of not reasoning each evidence separately and not connecting them to each other to an actual, complete state.

According to Appeals, the first scale did not analyze and assess the evidence as the only proof of what it proves and all related evidence to each other what a actual state of affairs proves. In addition, according to the Appeals Act, the first instance has not specified the incriminating actions of each accused in relation to the execution of the assassination.

In view of the fact that in the concrete case we are dealing with a very serious criminal case, this Court in the way the first degree act is compiled cannot be overcome as such, since the same for the higher case reasons is involved with essential violations of the penal procedure provisions” in the act of Apel.

As stated in the Appeals Act, no reason has been given in the act of first degree where the blood stains of which the DNA profile was made and which resulted in their now belonging to the late Naim Hajrizi. Then, the question of finding the wooden chaff has not been clarified, and the hammer issue has not been clarified about how the same was achieved in court and what is the importance of the same in this criminal case.

These guidelines of the Court of Appeals, though binding for the First Century Court, have been ignored and the same have been observed in the other court's act of judgment, which is now the object of the assessment by the college of this court” states the Apel's act.

In the end, Appeals points out that the first-degree court has the freedom of action about the assessment of evidence, while the Appeals Court only makes reassessing evidence and if it finds mistakes, only in extraordinary cases does the management of evidence with the opening of the second-degree review. In the concrete case, Apel points out that he found that the actual description was not done properly in the indictment and that the reasoning is insufficient

Otherwise, the case had become a retrial by the Court of Appeals on May 4, 2016. Appeals had cancelled the act of the Constitutional Court in Pristina, which on July 7, 2015, the two accused of killing Naim Hajriz, Gezim Retkoceri and Osman Spahiu had sentenced them to 30 years in prison.

In the case of a return to the retrial, the Court of Appeals had concluded that the Constitutional Court in Pristina had violated criminal procedure provisions and that the device of the court had not been drafted as envisioned with the Criminal Procedure Code.

The founding prosecutor in Pristina accuses Retkocer and Spahiun, that on April 29, 2009, in order to get himself rich, they had now kidnapped the late Naim Hajrizi, in order to deprive him of life.

According to the indictment, the deceased had now been hit with strong tools on his head, binding his legs and hands.

The prosecution claims that the two defendants, after killing the deceased now, had taken him to a location between the village of Smallusa and Dobrat and had burned his body.