10 minutes agoThe Court in Pec also mentions witness L.L.: The brother took the gun from Astria and shot at Blair
Periskopi(5 years ago)
(5 years ago)The Constitutional Court in Pec-Peja-Chief Department has approved the request of the Constitutional Prosecutor in Pec for the appointment of the detention measure against defendants A.A, due to suspicion based on the execution of a murder offense. This has been made known by a media communiqué by the Court of [...]
This has been made known by a media communique by the Pec Court.
On the date 08.09,2020, about 20:15 in Pec, defendant A.A. deliberately deprives the deceased B of life. K, that way since victim B.K. Along with witness L.L. had gone to a bar to meet with the victim A.A. where the defendant A was present, during a conversation between the two victims, and both victims immediately pulled out their weapons and for a moment while the victim was arguing A's gun was taken from victim A and with the same begins firing in the direction of the late B, which also at the same time is fired in the direction of victim A victim and defendant A, with the result of shooting taken by fire A's weapon has been spared from the victim, while the victim's death from the B's wounds, and the Bunika's gun is also being shot in the left seat, and we're saying it's an Axnig.
By these actions, the defendant A.A. had to commit murder by Article 172 of KPRK and criminal acts of possession, control or unauthorized possession of weapons by Article 366 par.1 of KPRC.
The defendants have been assigned detention measures during the length of thirty-30 days after the court estimated there is doubt that the same committed the criminal acts they suspected. Also, the criminal case is still expected to ensure other material evidence, witnesses will be heard, as well as the defendant himself, so with the possible finding of the defendants in freedom there is real danger that the same could affect witnesses in order to change their statements in his favor. Moreover, the court, given the burden of criminal activity, the defendants' personal characteristics, poor reports among families after the incident, has estimated that there is a danger that with the possible finding of the defendants in freedom it can perform new criminal work”, it is said further in the statement.
The court under official office praised other alternative measures for the security of the defendant's presence in the procedure, but found 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.
