The indictment against Skender Hysen confirmed

The decision says that the complaint by defendant Hyseni's defender, lawyer Fatlum Podvorica, is denied as unbashed, writes the Justice Vow.

According to the indictment compiled in December 2021, Pristina's Founding Prosecutorate charges Hyseni that in the form for property statements he did not submit the required data, not declaring a type car “Volkswagen”, worth 13 thousand and 300 euros, owned by his wife.

Otherwise, on these charges, Skender Hyseni has been declared innocent at the initial session held on January 12th 2022.

While the Constitutional Court in Pristina has ruled on February 23rd 2022, it has rejected the request for impeachment of the indictment and objections of evidence exercised by the defendant's defender with the argument that the collected evidence provides sufficient grounds for well-founded doubt that the defendant committed the criminal act, which is placed on him and has grounds for establishing the current indictment.

Against this act, within the legal term the complaint has exercised defender Hyseni, lawyer Pododadrica because of the substantial violation of criminal procedure provisions, the wrong enforcement of criminal law and the error and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation.

Lawyer Podvorica has proposed to the Court of Appeals that his complaint be approved as a base, complaining decision to cancel or change it, so that the indictment is brought down because there is not enough evidence to support the confirmed suspicion.

While the Appeals Prosecutor has proposed that the defendant's defender's complaint be rejected as unfounded, while the complaining act be confirmed.

Apel's decision states that according to the assessment of the Court of Appeals the defendant's complaints in this regard are groundless and that the court's act of first degree by which the request for the dropping of the indictment has been rejected and the rejection of evidence is based.

On the other hand, according to Appeals the act of the first-instance court is fair, legal, and the same does not contain substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions and violations of criminal law.

According to the Court of Appeals' criminal college assessment, the complaint act is clear, concrete and his reasoning is in line with the device.

According to Appeal, in the concrete case what is relevant in this phase of the criminal procedure is the fact that the indictment has been compiled in accordance with Article 241, paragraph 1 of the KPP, the same does not contain shortcomings that make it impossible to continue the criminal procedure and that it contains all the necessary elements that can be prosecuted in other stages of criminal procedure.

It's also relevant in the concrete case that the indictment as such is based on essentially supporting evidence and establishing the legal provisions and that there is no room for throwing away the indictment”, the reasoning of this decision is further stated in the decision.

The criminal acts Hyseni is charged with, according to Appeals, constitutes criminal acts and there are no circumstances that rule out criminal responsibility and other circumstances that prevent prosecution.

According to the indictment exercised by the Constitutional Prosecutor in Pristina, established on August 14th 2020 in Pristina, Skender Hyseni is charged that in the quality of the senior public official, state co-ordinator for Dialog at the Prime Minister's Office, on the occasion of taking this task, he has deliberately failed to submit the required data in the form for property statements, delivered to the Anti-Corruption Agency (AKK).

The incident says Hyseni did not declare the type car “Volkswagen”, the 2013 production year, worth 13 thousand and 300 euros, owned by his wife.

With these actions, the prosecution charges accused Skender Hyseni that he committed criminal work “Absent or false reporting of property, income, gift, other material benefits or financial obligations”, from Article 430, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, where the offender is fined and sentenced to six months to five years. The fines pronounced by this article can be pronounced daily and can be pronounced until the official observes the command, verdict, or almighty judgment subject to action.