Supreme refuses defense claim that Liridon Uruki killed his friend by carelessness

The Supreme Court has finally concluded that the convict Liridon Uruki, the killing of now late Fatlind Arifi, had committed him deliberately, not by negligence.

This conclusion, the Supreme Court has handed down in the trial with which it has rejected the demand for protection of the legality filed by Uruki's defence, against the court's first-instance and Appeals judgments, reports the “Justice Bettim”.

Uruki was accused of extracting the type “TT”, the same one had repetitated, and while checking whether there was a bullet in the barrel, had touched the trigger that shot the dead shot, the late Arifi, reports the Justice Accord.

For this charge, the Constitutional Court in Gjilan, on December 4, 2019, had sentenced the accused Uruqi to 18 years and 6 months in prison after having convicted him of murder and illegal weapons.

According to the Foundation, Uruki had acted deliberately, while defending the theory that to killing had resulted from negligence.

The Court of Appeals had confirmed this act in Gjilan.

However, the defence claimed that both of these judgments were taken in violation of the procedural provisions and criminal law. For this reason, at the request for protection of legitimacy, he was addressed to the Supreme Court.

In this request, attorney Blerim Halimi stressed that Uruqi's desire for the assassination had never been argued, and he felt it was also confirmed by the fact that the deceased and convict had never had a disagreement among them.

According to the defence, the court had not praised the statements of the deceased's parents and other witnesses that the deceased and convict had never had any problems among them.

In his request to the Supreme, the defense argued that the deceased and condemned were friends among them and that until the gun was fired it was the result of the convict's negligence while the same had been controlling the weapon.

“The lack of eventual desire is argued by the fact that the convict has not been aware that his action could result in consequences, respectively, has never agreed to cause anyone's death, including the late Fatlind, so the convict has never agreed to cause the death of the deceased. The court has violated criminal law at the expense of convicts even when it has not reaffirmed criminal activity from murder in carelessness, even though the legal conditions of the” were met, the defence request was said.

While as an essential violation of the criminal procedure, the defence stressed that the devices of first-instance bias were contrary to its reasoning.

Despite these defence claims, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Court of First Court and Appeals correctly found that the convict had committed the assassination by the eventual will, since the same had been aware that as a result of his action, the consequences could be caused, which he has agreed to be caused.

In the concrete case of the case's paperwork and controversial judgments, it turns out that the critical day of 28.07.2018 convict has acted deliberately on the eventuality proven by formal evidence and administered materials that are found in the subject paperwork. From these trials the courts have correctly estimated that the convict has been aware that the forbidden consequences could be caused as a result of his action and that he has accepted its cause”, the Supreme Court said.

According to this judgment, the convict could have had no intention of murder, but he has been aware that by his actions the possibility of this criminal act being carried out.

“The convict by his actions could not have aimed at causing the particular effect that has the features of the forbidden work or the causing of it, but has been aware that a great opportunity or a great risk of the work being carried out and will cause the consequences that he foresees as possible. At the evental ram, the chief assumes, with a large percentage that the work could be caused and agreed with it”, the Supreme Court's reasoning states.

The Supreme Court has argued that there is no claim to the defense that convicts that the murder was carried out by negligence, as witness, ballistic, psychiatric expertise, and the country's report of the event had proved that a eventual wish existed in the actions of the accused.

According to this court's assessment, unfounded are the claims of convicts and convicted defenders that the convicted criminal act was committed by negligence. This claim does not stand because, in concrete cases, in addition to the evidence that was reasoned in this act, this is confirmed by Dr. Afrem Canaj, who has concluded that the convict has not found elements of mental loss or mental backloging or other cognitative postroumatic injuries, has ruled out mental disorder as a result of brain damage or psychiatric disorder”, says the Supreme Act.

As for the fact that the deceased and the victim had had good reports, the Supreme Court has argued that good reports do not have any support in qualifying the crime of murder, but only in assessing the circumstances of the sentence.

By contrast, Urukh's attorney originally charged him with three criminal acts of serious murder, deportation, and possession without permission.

But in the final address, prosecutor Agron Uka had requalified criminal acts, where Uruqi was now accused of common murder.

The court in Gjilan had once again convicted Urukaj of this murder. On April 23, 2019, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for serious murder and illegal possession.

But that act had been marred by Appeals in September 2019 and the subject had become retrial.

According to the indictment, on July 28, 2018, in the village of Bresalz-Cunita of Gjilan, Liridon Uruqi, with direct action and deliberately deprived of life, now to the late Fatlind Arifi.

According to the indictment, he had done this in the way that he fired a gun at the deceased, who was shot at on the left side of his chest, decapitated from the wounds he received the same one didn't survive and passed away while taking him to the hospital.

With these actions, he was initially accused of committing criminal work “grave murder”, but then the prosecution had requalified criminal activity in the murder.

Also, Uruki was accused of deliberately pointing the same weapon to the initially injured K.H.H. and L.M., then injured-witter G. A, pull the trigger.

In this way, according to the prosecution, he was charged with committing the remaining criminal act in the attempted “grave murder”.

By device number III of the indictment, Uruki was accused of without authorization and contrary to the applicable weapons law, held the weapon with which he committed the murder.

By cʹrast, he was also accused of criminal activity “possession, control or unauthorized possession of weapons”