Supreme confirms the life sentence on police who killed Suhareka casino worker

The Supreme Court's College, in the criminal case of accused Shefki Spahiu of Suhareka, due to the criminal offense of serious murder and criminal fraud of evidence, posing in proportion to the defendant's complaint filed against the Constitutional Court's act of justice in Prizren, and the Kosovo Court of Appeals's conviction. In [...]
At the college session, held on May 20, 2021, by majority of votes, partially approved the appeal of defendant St. S, only in terms of the judicial appointment of a “serious murder”, which the accused has been convicted of, so that in the actions of the accused, this court finds elements of the criminal offense of the serious murder are fulfilled. In the rest the bias remains unchanged.
At the college public session, held on May 20th, accused Shefki Spahiu, his protector, E.K. lawyer, representative of the injured A.R. party, injured H.A., and A.A. The State Prosecutor did not participate in this session, but in pre-emptive, proposed that the defendant's defender's complaint be rejected as unfounded, while the convictions are confirmed.
The Supreme Court's collurgy, through the PA act. II.nr.3/2021 assessed the critical circumstances that were considered by the lower courts, but specifically highlighted the circumstances as follows; that the criminal offense was committed by the high degree of will, the accused was a member of the Kosovo Police, and that the work was done with official weapons, the circumstance which was deemed especially serious by the fact that the accused's own position has caused consequences not only to the victim, but also to the belief in security institutions and citizens in general, then under the circumstances under which the work was done without any motive, the victim has been vulnerable, and the person has not been protected, following his criminal conduct, trying to try crime and crime, but also in the fact that the new victims of the children have been married, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, namely.
So, “in the above-cekuric circumstances and in the absence of extenuating circumstances”, the Supreme Court College has estimated that “will not justify the pronunciation of any milder sentence than the one the court has pronounced in the first instance”.












