Supreme Banning Two Educators Charged for Abusing Three-year-old in Fushe-Kosovo

The Supreme Court has changed the first and second-degree decision against educators charged with having subjected violence to 3-year-old in the garden to “

In the October 12th 2023 ruling provided by “Justice Vow”, it is said that the court has named it a basis for N.M defence request through lawyer Muharrem Kurtaj for the protection of legitimacy and that a decision has been made against defendants to be released.

“With acceptance of the request for protection of legitimacy, defender of the N.M. defendant, and according to official duty also for the N.H. defendant, the Constitutional Court Act in Pristina X branch in Fushë Kosovo PPR.n.59A/2023 dates 20,9,2023 and the act of the Kosovo Appeal Court, The UNDP.1.nr.1449/2023 dates 27.9.23, so the defendants were denied the detention measure and the same are immediately released to freedom”, said Judge Majmaj, the ruling handed down by Supreme Court College Chairman.

The Supreme Court has reportedly estimated that there is no legal basis for keeping indictees in custody, and that the first and second-instance court have only envisioned legal provisions for the extent of the detention.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the subject documents and demanding the defendant's defense for protection of legitimacy, assessed that the rejected rulings should be changed and the defendant must be released from the detention measure, because the pending decisions are unstable, for which he can rightly warn the defender of his request. 3 According to this Court's assessment, there is no legal basis for keeping defendants in custody, because both the first-degree and second-instance courts have only envisioned legal provisions for the measure of detention”, the ruling is said to reason.

The prosecutor has reportedly managed to prove the evidence given that a criminal act has been committed, but has failed to reason on the appointment of the detention measure.

Under that decision, the prosecutor has only pre-affixed the legal provisions, which are also approved by both steps of courts.

“In a concrete case from the subject's paperwork, it turns out that the prosecutor has managed to prove the suspicion given that criminal acts were committed, but has failed to describe evidence supporting the suspicion that there is danger of escape and repetition of the work he has sought to appoint detention. In fact, the prosecutor has only prefigured the legal provisions, and the pre-frarating has also approved the first and second degree court, because of the subject paperwork, it doesn't result in any concrete circumstances that argued that with the finding of defendants in freedom, they will be able to escape, when their age is considered, the fact that they are family, you know, the location, the identity of”, in the reasoning of the decision.

Neither is the fact argued, said that with the finding of defendants in freedom, they can repeat criminal acts, much less when they are suspended from the workplace and have no criminal history.

Under the ruling, in concrete cases there are no circumstances that make the detention assignment reasonable.

“in the concrete case of the subject paperwork does not result in any concrete circumstances that make the detention assignment reasonable due to the risk of running out and repeating the 4 criminal act, so this court changes the amendments and defendants are released from custody to defend in freedom”, said in part in the ruling.

The decision stresses that the other defendant, N.H., had not applied, but the court estimated that the reasons for which the N.M. defendant has made a decision in behalf of him, which are not of personal nature, benefit the other defendant, who has not submitted the request.

It is noteworthy that, in terms of defence request, Muharrem Kurtaj had provided answers to the State Prosecutor, who had proposed that the same be refused as unfounded.

N.M. and N.H. are suspected of criminal acts “Kesting during the exercise of official duty or public authorization”, by Article 195 paragraph 2 concerning paragraph 1 of KPRK and “Equipment”, by Article 185 paragraph 3, points 3.1 concerning paragraph 1, KPRK's 1, points.

Otherwise, Pristina Constitutional Prosecutorship on October 9th of this year has filed charges against the two defendants, who are charged with mistreating the child at our “Gzime, at Fushe-Kosovo. /Betimy for Justice