Naim Murselaj, Granit Plava and Cocalle Conservation: Here's what Apel says

In Apel's decision provided by “Battle for Justice”, The first-instance court has reportedly acted directly on the case of appointing the detention measure to top defendants because there are credible reasons that if the defendants are found in freedom, they will escape and can leave the country.

It says that following the decision of the war crimes suspect Murseli's defender, he filed complaints with the Court of Appeals, seeking to terminate the measure of detention against his client.

The defendant's “subservative N.M lawyer A.A, due to substantial violations of the KPP provisions and violations of the International Convention provisions, with the proposal that the Court of Appeals of Kosovo approve as based on his complaint, disrupt the complaint of the complaint, and that my defenders cut short the measure of detention and the same allow them to defend in freedom or change, so that any of the alternative measures defined at 171PCP is stated in the decision.

According to lawyer Ahmeti's complaint, there is no evidence on the subject papers that would reason the detention assignment on this basis.

The second key to the detention assignment is based on Article 184 paragraph 1 under paragraph 1.2.1, that there is an alleged danger that the defendant will flee to avoid criminal responsibility, given the fact that a high prison sentence is set forth for these criminal acts and that the defendant allegedly escaped from the scene.” was quoted as saying in the lawyer's complaint.

On the other hand, according to Apel, Mursel's defense claims that in the argument for the extent of the detention, in which there is reportedly the possibility of annihilation, hiding or counterfeiting evidence, lawyer Ahmeti says they do not stand by these circumstances.

The third argument, based on Article 184 paragraph 1 point 1.2.2 of the KPP for the appointment of the detention measure, hiding, changing or counterfeiting evidence of criminal acts, or when specific circumstances show that the protected will prevent the flow of criminal procedure from affecting the eventual witness, or co-partants, does not stand at <x1, is also reported in the complaint.

But, the Court of Appeals has rejected the alleged Murseli defender's complaint as unfounded.

According to Apel's assessment of the complaint ruling, the first-degree court has found there is suspicion based on suspects, which according to the tribunal is a condition for the measure set for detention.

After the assessment of the Kosovo Appeal Court, the above complaint claims are unfounded. In the complaining ruling, the first-instance court has found there is a suspicion based on that indictees N. M., G.P. and K. K, they have committed the criminal acts for which they are suspected, the condition for the appointment of the detention measure to them, conform Article 184 par 1 below 1.1 points 1.2.1, 1.2.2.2 and 1.2.3 of the KPP, because there is a doubt that the defendants committed the criminal acts that were imposed on them and that suspicion is confirmed on the basis of: Police reports, confirmation of the temporary extraction of items date 0112.23, The video record CD of the site, photo documentation, site of the event, witness statements, the defendant's statement, from the criminal past, as well as other letters”, is said in Apel's decision.

After all these evidence, Apel says the Foundation estimates that there is a doubt that the defendant has committed the criminal act allegedly and that the general condition of doubt is met based first on Article 184 pars. I. Under the money. 1st of the KKPPRK, which is a general legal base, for the appointment of the detention measure.

According to Appeals' assessment, the first-instance court has acted directly on the case of appointing the detention measure to suspects.

Otherwise, the fourth suspects in this case, T.D., on December 11th has been assigned the detention measure.

The fourth suspect was arrested on December 9th, under suspicion of selling the gun to the armman.

The reasons for the murder of Adamaj, which had Swedish citizenship along with her husband and two sons, are not yet known.

On 3 December, Pristina's Constitutional Court has approved the prosecution's request, assigning the detention measure to three suspects for the murder of 30-year-old Liridona Ademiaj one month.

In this case, suspected of killing Liridona are her husband, Naim Murseli, the mastermind of the assassination, Granit Plava, both Doras and Cocalla, a member of the Kosovo Security Force, and T.D., for the sale of weapons to defendants Murseli and Plava. /Betimy for Justice