Two witnesses are heard in the “People's Eye” case

After the Kosovo Court of Appeals turned the case to zero “The People's Office”, with the request that the Special Prosecutor arrange the accusation, it has come with an improved new indictment. According to the new indictment, there are only Sadri Ramabaja, Avni Llumnica and Bajrush Konjusha, where judgment has already ended for the latter.

During his testimony, Iron Mavriqi declared he is behind his testimony given in the past trial. But he even today answered some of the questions the parties involved had.

He even handed in his father's death testimony, Ramiz Mavriqi, who was also a witness, who had passed away on March 23, 2021.

The case attorney, Burim Cherkini, was interested to know that Azem Vlas's phone number that someone had asked Iron Mavirich's father if he told him what he was in the car with or after. Mavriqi said I don't know but that while they were in the car, his dad didn't give Azem Brothers' phone number to anyone.

My father had a friend, as your mother's uncle Sadri Ramabaya so did my father because my grandmother was Ramabai ... Madriqi: No, we were in the car together around Gracanica somewhere with the parent he used a couple of phones and a number had a number in my name, a number in his name, and in that number that he never had that number he never called and used for the internet alone, he calls an unknown person to say I'm a man from Majiqani, I need the number of Azem Vlases for a land, and we're surprised that the number of Azem Vlads can be found on Google or even before his apartment... Dad says well, I'll contact the lawyer, and if he accepts, I'll contact them again. Did your father call Azem Vlase at the same time? Mavirik: We were at an agricultural drug store in Gracanica and it seems to me that in the afternoon or the next day I don't know that I wasn't there and told her that there's a pair that's interested in”, that was communication between the prosecutor Cherkini and the Maviric witness.

Mavriqi said he doesn't even know the other indictee, Avni Lluminica, until Sadri Ramabaya said he had a distant family connection, while the injured man, Azem Vlass, claimed that his father was his friend.

And then the accused, Avni Llumnica, was introduced to witness Iron Mavirich telling him that he was the victim of Azem Vlas and Sadri Ramabaya.

I am Avni Llumnica and I am the victim of Azem Vlas and Sadri Ramabaya for their doings that are still unknown to me”, Llumnica said.

The other witness, Berat Rrustemi, also claimed to stand behind all he had previously declared. The row is the defendant's nephew, Avni Llumnica. From State Attorney Burim Cherkini, he was asked that the accused, Avni Llumnica, met him before the critical day, the witness said he met him again and on the critical day he met him after inviting him to drink coffee at the bar where he works.

Rrustemi stated that even though he met his uncle he was never informed of these events.

Cherkini: Have you met in March 2017 with Llumnica?

Let's get: I've met the critical day.

“Cerkin: According to what you said, do you remember in 2017 in March, did you meet Uncle Avni Llumnica... "Refuse: Yeah. Cherkini: Do you remember how many times you met? Let's get: I don't know the day it happened, but we've met before. Cherkini: On the occasion, do you remember what time you met? Let's get: Somewhere around 11:00 p.m. if I'm not mistaken in the morning... Cherkini: When did you meet him or was he with someone? Let's get: With someone. Cherkini: Do they know who he was hanging out with? Let's get: Not until I realized who he was with later at 3-4 through the media on the same day. Cherkini: Where did you meet? Let's get: I invited him to drink coffee in my” bar, they said.

After hearing two evidence, it was decided for other witnesses to verify their residential address and be brought to court to give the testimony, despite the prosecutor's case, Burim Cerkini proposed that besides Najazi Sinan, the testimony of Nuhi Zeka, Gezim Halit and Faton Topalli only be read.

But that was rejected by the protection of the two indictees in the case. Then, the court panel headed by Musa Condzhel made a decision to verify their addresses and be brought to the courtroom to give the testimony.

The defendant's lawyer, Sadri Ramabaja, Ramiz Krasniqi, over the prosecutor's request for witness hearing demanded that they be heard in court.

It's a problem to improve the prosecutors' mistakes during the trial collection, if we were invited as lawyers when these witnesses were heard at the prosecution, if they were in the police, then the dilemma that they can read these statements does not exist is not the first time prosecutors risk investigations. I still support colleague Rudari for witnesses to be invited”, he said.

Even at this trial hearing, Avni Llumnica has demanded that his client be released from the detention measure.

I'm required by the court to stop the detention measure against Avni Llumnica by always praising that there are no conditions and circumstances to stay under the measure of detention always by basing them on legal provisions. We have also offered as a guarantee of illegal property that weighs the burden too many times on Avni Llumnica to convince the court and the prosecutor that Avni Llumnica will never for a moment avoid this criminal procedure”, he stressed.

And the prosecutor, Burim Cherkini and the injured one, Azem Vlasi, opposed that. It was Vlase's opposition that prompted the defendant's reaction, Avni Llumnica.

“Azem Vlasi will be cleared from A to Z, all of you would have been guilty except Avni Llumnica, it's coming that day and we see that I've loved to discover the crime in Kosovo or to follow the crime I swear that I've been following crime we've been decorating and many other events we've never discovered in my life I've never been against Albanians. I have protected you even in time of the trigger (Serbian)”, said tense Llumnica.

The next session in this case is expected on May 24, 2021, at 9:30.

Otherwise, this case is known as “The People's Office” had begun under the Special Prosecutor's Act of the Republic of Kosovo (PSRK), on February 27th 2018.

Avni Llumnica, Ragip Salova, Sadri Ramabaja, Sabit Berisha, Behxhet Luzha, Halim Halimi, Bajrush Konjusha, Lirije Luzha and Rexhep Toplana were accused of various criminal acts.

According to this indictment, defendant Avni Llumnica deliberately now the late M. J. To kill for revenge to harm Azem Vlads, he had helped J. to commit a crime.

According to this indictment, the Constitutional Court in Pristina, led by the chairman of the panel, Naim Krasniqi é Jashanica and Judge Vesel Ismajli and Valbona Musliu Selimaj, had taken the conviction with which the accused had pleaded guilty.

Sadri Ramabaya, M. J., Ragip Salova, Avni Llumnica, Bexhet Luzha, Halim Halimi, Bajrush Konjusha and Rexhep Toplana, in January 2020, were convicted of criminal acts against constitutional order and other criminal acts.

Avni Llumnica for her revenge offense has been sentenced to three years in prison for one year's rape, and for terrorist acts, 10 years in prison, his sentence has been pronounced unique to 12 years in prison. He will also be counted time in custody and seized car “FALSE”, with foreign license plates.

For terrorist criminal acts, Sadri Ramaba was sentenced to 5 years in prison, while for the same criminal offence, accused Ragip Salova had been sentenced to 4 years in prison, while Rexhep Toplana had been sentenced to 2 years.

The late M. J. Because of his condition, the court had pronounced him compulsory psychiatric treatment for 10 years.

Behxhet Luzha for failing to announce the crime was sentenced to two years in prison.

Halim Halimi and Bajrush Konjusha had been sentenced to three years in prison. In addition to prison, Konjusha with 300 euros in fines for illegal possession.

To accused Sabit Berisha and Lirimje Luza had been rejected, since the prosecutor had renounced prosecution. But with the findings of the Constitutional Court, the Court of Appeals, which had turned the case into retrial, had even demanded that the case return from the initial review due to inevitable violations.