Prosecution File: Yanuzaj Gevdet killed Guzim Kastrati in Pec with seven bullets

This was made known by a communiqué to the media by the Pec Foundation Court.

The Randa Crimes Department has approved the Basic Prosecutor's request in Pec for the appointment of the detention measure against indictees J. J, because of the suspicion based on:

By 18.05.2021, about 15:30 minutes, at a bar in Pec, he has deliberately deprived himself of life now, and has seriously risked the lives of other persons present at the local table, in a way that because of an earlier incident where the defendant was accused and convicted of sexual harassment of the victim's minor daughter, as the victim enters the locals and sits down at a table of order and notices the defendant sitting at the next table, pulls out the gun from the belt, puts the gun in you, and goes to the defendant's desk and tries to shoot him in the direction but after the defendant pulls out the gun and then takes it seven times in the direction of the victim, and then takes it's been reported to be reported in the scene.

With these actions, defendant J. J had to commit the criminal offense committed by Article 173, par.1, subpar.1.5 of KPRK and criminal use of weapons or dangerous means by Article 367 par.1 of KPRC.

The defendants have been assigned detention measures in length of thirty days after the court assessed there is doubt that the same has committed the crimes they suspect. Also, given that the defendant has escaped immediately after the prosecution of the crime and has surrendered only after being pursued by police bodies, as well as given the impending high sentence if his guilt on the part of the court is proven, are real circumstances that testify that if the same is found in freedom, he can hide or avoid the bodies of prosecution, and thus hinder the case.

The court has approved the prosecution's proposal for the appointment of the detention measure against indictees J. Noting that witnesses at this stage have not been heard either from the victim's family and defendants and that reports between the victim's family are also frustrated, given the weight of criminal acts and the way they committed, the court has estimated that with possible finding the defendants in freedom, the same could affect witnesses, repeat the same work, or perform other criminal work.

The court under official office praised other alternative measures for the security of the defendant's presence in the procedure, but it estimated that no alternative measure would be adequate at the stage of the procedure.

Against this decision the dissatisfied side has the right to complaint at the Court of Appeals.