Special Disaction Against Sabit Januzi and Ismet Bahtiri

The same charges have been made public, and they are seen as being accused of criminal acts at the breaking end of administration of justice.

In the indictment against them, it is specified how they feared a witness, urging the same one not to testify in Special.

As if the following was explained, between April 5, 2023, and April 12, 2023, JANUSIA and BAHTAR, in association with other individuals, among whom [it] REDAKUED] (“Co-chairman 117x2>), were co-ordinated as a group before and after the personal contacts of JANUZI and BAHTRIA with witness 1. Concretically, JANUSIA and BAHTAR each met with witness 1 to encourage witness 1 to withdraw testimony, or not to give evidence in official processes before DHSK. This behavior clearly shows the goal of JANUZIT and BAHTARH to harm and prevent official persons from performing official tasks”, the SPS says.

The charge against Jonuz and Bahtiri has also been specified in the actions of the two accused against witness 1, whose identity is protected.

The latter appeared later in Special, saying he and his family feel threatened.

Actual:

On April 5, 2023, the co-chairman 1 called him. JANUZIT. Then BAHTAR called him. JANUZIT 8. After the witness was called and confirmed that 1 was at home, THE man went to witness house 1. THE man told witness 1 that the co-chairman 1 had recently contacted him and sent him to tell witness 1 that he should withdraw the testimony.

When witness 1 asked him if [ REDAKZED] witness 1 would testify, BAHTYRIA confirmed this. 10. THE man left Witness 1's house and walked to a nearby car, where two men were waiting and a third person in the driver's seat. 11. As a result of this contact, Witness 1 was deeply concerned about the safety of his family. Twelve. Later on April 5, 2023, after BAHJARIA had visited witness 1, co-chairman 1 and JANUSIA, as well as JANUSIA and BAHTRIA individually, they had numerous text and phone contacts, including contacts between co-chairs 1 and JANUIT for co-ordination of a personal meeting that night. 13. During the following days, co-chairman 1 and JANUSIA, among other things, remained in contact and contacted at least four times between April 6 and April 9, 2023.

On April 12, 2023, shortly after he had called fellow principals 1, JANUSIA went to witness house 1. At Witness One's House, JANUZA told witness 1 that the co-chairman 1 had sent BAHTARIAN to witness 1, and that JANUSIA was there following the visit of BAHTARARI and to find out what witness 1 was planning to do and how the question of his testimony could be settled. 15. In this regard, witness 1 told JANUZIT that he no longer wanted to take care of the matter and that it would end. JANUSIA said he'd tell you exactly what witness 1 had said.

Shortly after a visit of April 12, 2023, to witness 1, JANUSIA again called the co-chairman 1. 17. As a result of the second contact, witness 1 became even more concerned with its own safety and family. 18. JANUSIA and BAHTAR: (i) created serious fears and concerns for a person who gave or likely gave information T The FHS, SPS and/any DHSK court for crimes or criminal acts involved in DHSK jurisdiction, which constitutes a strong discouraging factor in providing (more) information from this person related to crimes involved in DHSK jurisdiction; (ii) jeopardised the DHSK/ Z The SP to investigate and prosecute crimes effectively, among other things, through obtaining and protecting relevant witness evidence; and (ii) influenced the SPS to deviate its resources and time, to address the actual and possible consequences for witness 1 and his family regarding the official processes of the DHSK. Nineteen. As for the time and resources of the SPS and the DHSK, these include: the commitment of more SPS and DHSC employees to additional unnecessary contacts, with witness 1, to ensure witness safety and ability 1 to testify; the spending of SPS's means and resources for investigating events discussed in this Aktakuza; and spending time and resources of the ZPS and DHSK to take new security measures. 20. As explained in paragraphs 7 to 17 earlier, Sabit JANUSIA and Ismet BAHTJARIA had the objective and knowledge needed of the criminal acts (i) to prevent official persons from performing official duties, through severe threats, and (ii) participation in a group of people who, through joint action, attempted to prevent officials from performing official duties.