Supreme confirms life sentence on police who killed a worker in Suhareka

The Supreme Court's college, in the criminal case of accused Shefki Spahiu of the Republic of Kosovo (KPRK), due to the criminal offence of the 179 par.1 subpar.1.4 and vicepar.6 of the Kosovo Criminal Code (KPRK), and criminal work manipulation with evidence from Article 397 par.1 of KPRK, falsely deciding on the defender's complaint filed against the Constitutional Court's conviction in Prizren, and the Act of Court of Kosovo Court.

At the college session held on May 2021, by majority of the vote, he partially approved the complaint of the defender of the S.C., only in the judicial appointment of the criminal act of serious murder by Article 179 par.1 subpar.1.4 and vicepar.1.6 of the KPRK, for which the accused has been convicted, so that in the actions of the accused, this court finds the elements of the criminal act of serious murder by Article179,1par, KPRC. 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.

College of the Supreme Court, through the P.D. II.nr.3/2021 assessed the critical circumstances that have been taken into consideration 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 trust in security institutions and citizens in general, then under the circumstances under which the work was done without any motive, the victim, the victim has been vulnerable, and the possible person has been protected, after the execution of his criminal act, trying to commit crime and to try anything new crime, the fact that the young children have been injured, and young children have been married.

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”.