House arrest against three Istog municipality officials

Peja's Foundation Court has announced that the house arrest measure has been assigned to J. B , R.G. and R.B. due to alleged criminal abuse of official position or authority, while E. B He's freed to defend himself in freedom.

Prescription J. B R.G.G. and R.B., with dates of 16,10,2020, 28,09,20 with the date of 04.11,2020, and a date of 14,12,2020 on the C. I, acting as co-chairman and the defendant J in the quality of the director for Urban Planning and Environment, while the defendants R and R, in quality of officials close to the director, taking advantage of office and official authority, exceed their competencies, with the aim of granting rich benefit to the other person, acting contrary to the Law for Construction, and the Municipal Development Plan release construction permits for construction, in the way that the defendants are aware that the cadastra for which is preset to grant construction to investors, where the construction plan for construction of the case with the construction of the construction of construction, is to ensure that the defendants are able to proceed with the highest quality of the territory, and that they are able to proceed with the training of the command of the process of the individual, and that is to provide for example, and that is to ensure that the individual individual judges are able to do so.

The announcement reportedly that those in co-operation committed criminal acts “Use of official position or authority”.

Defendants J. B , R.G. and R.B. court, were assigned home arrest in a month's length, assessing that it is sufficient to ensure the presence of defendants in the procedure since criminal acts were committed in co-ordination and in this phase of the procedure are still taking investigative action with the aim of identifying new evidence so that with the possible finding indictees at freedom the court estimates that the defendants could easily change anything, change or hide evidence of criminal work with the intention of avoiding or reducing their criminal responsibility or co-ordination of each other, as well-known to their colleagues and finding them in the same line of war crimes can be reported in the same case, apologic report.

The court rejected the prosecution's proposal for appointing the detention measure to indictee E.B.

“The defendant E.B. with the official date of 21.9.2018, in the C.I, quality of the official person, official for the environment near the Directorate for Urban Planning and Environment, personally participates in the official issue that a member of her family has financial interest, in that, the defendant as an official for the environment, the economic subject in which the co-owner is the defendant's co-owner, in which the investor is known environmental permission to build the environmental authority for the aristo-shaban> <1x).

The report reportedly had to commit criminal work “Interest Conflict”.

“The court rejected the prosecution's request for the detention measure appointed to the E.B. defendant, and the same was immediately released to defend itself in freedom since it assessed that the prosecution in the detention assignment request has only pre-designed the legal provision upon which it has supported the request for detention assignment and has not provided logical reasons to support the existence of pre-lawed bases for the appointment of the detention measure”.

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