The prosecution seeks detention for eight arrested in the “Brezovica 3” case

They currently find themselves in the amount of ban 48 hours.

<x0); Foundation Procurory at Ferizaj, the Department of Criminals, has requested from the Foundation Court in Ferizaj the appointment of a 30-day detention measure to defendants A.I., I.M., F.H.A., R.A., M.S.A., A.X., Mr.G., and H.A., who are placed under the ban of 48 hours”, the municipality reported.

Full communication:

The Constitutional Prosecutor in Ferizaj, the Department of Reforming Crimes, has requested from the Constitutional Court in Ferizaj the appointment of a 30-day detention measure to defendants A.I., I.M., F.H., R.A., M.S., A.X., Mr.G., and H.A., who, at the decision of the State Prosecutor, are placed under a 48-hour ban.

According to the prosecution's request, there is doubt that since 2016, the defendant I.M., as an official head executive at the Agency for Protection of the Environment of Kosovo, has misused official duty by failing to fulfill official duties with the aim of profitability for other people, thus performing criminal work “Kerusing the official position or authority” by Article 422.1 of KPRK. The same one, according to the Prosecutor, has indirectly accepted money to act in opposition to his official duties, would carry out the criminal work “Copying” by Article 428 par. Two of KPRK.

For the defendant A.I., there is a doubt that between 2014 and 2018, in Shtrpce, he directly gave money to the official person not to act in accordance with his official duties, with this he would carry out the criminal work “Bribe's divorce” by Article 429 par.3 with the first KPRK. Likewise, the same one has indirectly given a gift to the official person, to exercise unjust influence on his decision making, with this would carry out the criminal work “The abuse of influence” by Article 431 par.2 of KPRC.

For defendants Mr.G., and A.X., there is suspicion that from 2016 to 2019, as official persons at the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MMPH) in Pristina, in co-ordination helped defendant A. C., in performing criminal work “Taking bribes” for issuing environmental consents and water liners to “National Park Sharri” in the Brezovica weekend, the Shtrpce municipality, with this they would carry out a joint criminal work “bribing” in aid from Article 428 par. 2 related to Article 31 and 33 of KPRK. The same, as the official person in the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MMPH), directly received money, with the aim of unjust exercise in decision making the official person, by this they would carry out the criminal work co-ordination “influence training” by Article 431 pars. 2 connected to KPRK Article 31.

So M.S., there is a doubt that he directly gave a gift to the official person not to act in accordance with his official duties, with this he would commit the criminal act “Bribery 6.8x1> by Article 429 par.3 related to KPRK's par. The same one, indirectly given a gift in front of the official person to exercise an unfair influence on his decision making, with this would carry out the criminal act “The exercise of influence” by Article 431 par.2 of KPRK.

According to the prosecution, there is suspicion that since 2010, in Shtrpce, he directly gave money to the official person not to act in accordance with his official duties, with this he would carry out the criminal work “Bribery 6.8x1> by Article 429 par.3 concerning the first KPRK.1. The same one, indirectly given a gift in front of the official person to exercise an unfair influence on his decision making, with this would carry out the criminal act “The exercise of influence” by Article 431 par.2 of KPRK.

On the other hand, against the R.A. defendants, there is a doubt that in 2018, in Shtrpce, he indirectly gave money to the official person not to comply with his duties, with this he would carry out the criminal work “Bribe's divorce” by Article 429 par.3 of KPRK. The same was indirectly given to the official person to exercise unfair influence on the official person's decision-making, with this would be the criminal act “The exercise of influence” by Article 431 par.2 of KPRK. And, according to the prosecution's request, there is doubt that in 2017, the same document has been falsified in order to be used as original would be carried out in the criminal work “Falsification of documents” by Article 398 par.2 of KPRK

And, to defendants H.A., there is a doubt that since 2015-2020, in Shtrpce, as an investment in the weekend-zone, indirectly and directly, he gave gifts of money and weekends to the official person in order not to act in accordance with his official duties, with this he would carry out the criminal work “The payment code to the Article 429.3 in terms of the CPRK.1. The same indirectly gave a gift to the official person to exercise an unfair influence on his decision making, with this would carry out the criminal act “The exercise of influence” by Article 431 par.2 of the KPRK.