The foundation throws the indictment against three other indictees for 11-year-old violation in June, Appeals returns him to restoration

Such a decision to drop the indictment was taken on January 12th 2023 by Judge Adnan Isufi, where, according to him, the indictment in relation to the high-ranking defendants is incomplete, reports the “Justice bet”.

“Apocus PP... at point IV connected to defendant G.S. and B.S. and point V. III regarding defendant M. S- Because Parastice-Axakza PP... dt. 21.12.2022 is incomplete”, says the Foundation's decision, which has provided “Justice bet“.

However, such a decision has been unacceptable to the Court of Appeals, as on January 26, 2023, the college consisting of judges Hashim Colak chairman of the college, Geevdet Abazi and Ferit Osmani members, has cancelled the Constitutional Court's decision in Pristina, turning the criminal case into the first-instance court in restoration.

Otherwise, eight people are involved, B.R., D.R., G.S., B.S., M.S., F.S., M.R., and E.S., who are charged with various criminal acts, who are charged with involvement in the event of 11-year-old rape.

The “Justice Vow” had reported the establishment of the indictment by Pristina Foundation Prosecutors against eight of the accused quoted above.

The Foundation's decision, which was taken on January 12th 2023, says that the court on the case of the indictment is limited to preventing the epilogue of the criminal case at meritum and the full and final assessment of the qualifications of criminal work.

Until the trial has yet to begin, the Court is also unable to assess whether the actual situation is fully proven and beyond any doubt on the basis of evidence because it would be entirely biased for the trial epilog”, the verdict said.

According to the Foundation's decision, the court has found that the accusatory act of investigation at the IV point concerning the G.S. and B.S. and the point V. III concerning the defendant M.R., has not been compiled in compliance with KPRK's Article 241, respectively, the accusation is incomplete.

On the other hand, this decision says that the indictment at the top points, respectively, is not clear enough, is confusing and the actual description does not clearly match the judicial qualifications of criminal acts.

According to the court, the easy access to judicial consideration of persons suspected on the basis of an indictment act, which does not exactly share the incriminating actions of each suspected person, and when the actual description is not clearly compatible with legal qualifications, it constitutes violations not only of the provisions of the criminal procedure but also of human rights and inadequate administration of justice.

According to Judge Isufi, it is the duty of the State Prosecutor to conduct the investigation in phases before the establishment of the indictment and secure all evidence that proves the standard of well-based suspicion.

“Establishment of the indictment so that the case can be investigated during the trial or for improvements to be left in other phases of the procedure is unacceptable”, the decision said.

In the concrete case, it is impossible for the court to assess the actual incriminating actions of each defendant for the separate criminal acts that are charged at the IV point of the charge, while the actual description on IV and V devices III of the indictment act against defendants G. S, B.S and M.R. clearly does not correspond to the legal elements of concrete criminal acts that defendants are charged with.

According to the tribunal, each person suspected is responsible for his incriminating actions, not the incriminating actions of other suspected persons, and that criminal responsibility is individual.

Under the verdict, the court, based on legal obligations and acting on the proper and precise implementation of legal provisions and free conviction, has carefully assessed the prosecution act and has come to the conclusion that defendants G. S, B.S. and M.R will not be declared regarding point IV, respectively. III of the accuser act, as long as the accuser act contains the high absences.

“III concerning the defendant M.R., in order to offer the possibility of the state prosecution reporting with defendants in question to do the necessary analyses in order to establish the new accuser act”, the Constitutional Court's decision in Pristina is said to end.

Against this act, the complaint has been exercised by the Constitutional Prosecutor in Pristina, due to violation of the procedure law aimed at guaranteeing the right from Article 415, subparagraph 1.1 to 1.2 of the KPP, with proposals that the Court of Appeals of Kosovo would approve, the complaining decision to cancel it, and the subject return it to restoration.

Similarly, Kosovo's Appeals Prosecutor through a written parachute on January 23rd 2023 had proposed that the Pristina Constitutional Prosecutor's complaint be approved as based, the complaint act to be annulled, and the subject be returned to the first instance court in restoration.

In this regard, the Kosovo Court of Appeals, the Department to Mitur on January 26th 2023, has cancelled the Constitutional Court's decision in Pristina, turning the criminal case into the first instance court in restoration.

According to the Court of Appeals, the complaint is based and the complaining act is involved in essential violations of the provisions of the criminal procedure by Article 384, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1.12 of the KPP, because the complaint act has not been compiled in harmony with the 370 KPP article, violations of those with absolute character.

The College for Youth of the Court of Appeals has estimated that the device of the complaining act is contrary to his reasoning and as well as other subject papers.

According to the Court of Appeals, such an act is flawed for which it cannot be examined, and the same has necessarily had to be annulled and the case to be returned to the first-degree court in restoration.

The first-instance court should be re-established in relation to remarks given by this court and proceed further, given even the complaint claims”, it says.

By contrast, Pristina's Constitutional Prosecutor, in December 2022, had filed charges against eight people -- of adulthood -- over involvement in the 11-year-old Pristina rape case in June.

The news had become known the Founding Prosecutor in Pristina, through a communique for media.

According to the indictment, the defendant B.R., is tasked for criminal work “Duni”, from Article 227, paragraph 7 concerning paragraph 4, chapters 4.7 related to KPRK paragraph 1, defendant D.R., tasked with criminal acts “Dumi”, from Article 227, paragraph 7 concerning paragraph 4, 4.7 concerning paragraph 1 of KPRK, and <x4-Tradition of people, 165 of 165, over paragraph 1 KPR.

On the other hand, the indictment reportedly accusers of G.S. and B.S. are charged with criminal acts “The sex services of trafficking victim”, from Article 228, paragraph 7 concerning KPRK paragraph 1, while defendant M.S., tasked for criminal work “Dunium”, from Article 227, paragraph 7 concerning paragraph 4 points 4.7 in connection with KPRK paragraph 1.

“The defendant F.S., charged for criminal acts “Dunium”, from Article 227, paragraph 7 concerning paragraph 4 points 4.7 about paragraph 1 of KPRK and “Trafficking with people”, from Article 165, paragraph 2 concerning paragraph 1 of KPRK, M.R. defendant tasked for criminal work “The sex services of trafficking victim”, from Article 228, paragraph 7 concerning paragraph 1 of KPRK, as well as the defendant E.S., tasked for criminal work “assist in carrying out the criminal work “Dumi”, from Article 227, paragraph 7 concerning paragraph 4.7 concerning paragraph 1 and related to Article 33 of KPRK”, says the prosecution's announcement.

We remember that the same judge, on January 13th, 2023, has rejected the indictment exercised against the five suspects: E.R. and St. K, as well as three minors charged with involvement in the 11-year-old rape case, which occurred in August 2022.

While, following the prosecution's complaint on January 26th 2023, the Court of Appeals has approved it as being based on the Constitutional Prosecutor's request in Pristina, cancelling the foundation decision against the five defendants.