K The JCK SUC finds the three judges responsible for disciplinary violations over claims to have influenced the “Brezovica”

According to the KRK's decision, issued on April 6th 2023, judges Mehmeti, Bytyqi and Hoti are reportedly not found responsible for alleged disciplinary violations by competent authorities regarding claims of impacts in the “Brezovica” case.

By contrast, “Justice Trust” in research titled “Nickations in the Brezovica” case had presented how this case was targeted by a large number of people inside and outside institutions, including the justice system, who allegedly attempted to destroy investigations.

On the “Justice Vow” show, claims of impact were presented on the basis of reports made through official channels in the highest hierarchy of the judicial and prosecutorial system.

In addition to the cases presented in the show, allegedly attempted to be affected in the case “Brezovica”, in communications provided by the “Justice Vow”, results in reports of interference in the case by other officials as well as judges of all levels.

Among the effects highlighted in these communications where the highest heads of the judiciary and prosecution are announced were the alleged effects of the two judges Arben Hoti and Enes Mehmeti.

According to the paperwork, it turned out that both judges have pressured a legal official at the Foundation Court in Ferizaj to prepare visiting permission at the detention centre by the family of one defendant, contrary to the Centre's rules.

The “Justice Vow” had contacted both judges who had denied that claim, stressing that they have worked for several years as judges at the Ferizaj Court, but that in no way have contacted any officials in this court, much more so as to try to be affected in any case.

The same ones have denied claims of influence even in the disciplined procedure against them in the KDR.

Under this decision, the KDR has accepted the request for the beginning of investigations by the competent authority for Judge Mehmeti, claiming he committed disciplinary violations under the Law for the Discipline responsibility of Judges and Prosecutors. In that decision, it is said that this request for the beginning of the investigation was based on the enamel of former Supreme Court Chairman Enver Peci, as well as on the “Justice Vow” amendment to Brezovica” case.

During this period, the KGK had also accepted the request for the launch of investigations into Judge Arben Hoti, claiming that Judge Hoti, as presented in the research of the show “Justice Vow”, entitled “The impact on Brezovica”, among other things, has claimed that Judge Hoti through some other judges has influenced him to issue permission for a visit to the defendant LV, contrary to the detention centre's rules in Gjilan.

Also, according to this decision regarding the same situation, the deputy chairman of the Foundation Court in Ferizaj had filed a request for the start of investigations against Judge Ilir Bytyqi.

The three judges, at the hearing, had denied having influenced the release of a visit to a detainee in the “Brezovica” case.

On the other hand, this ruling reportedly has found no evidence of the administration of evidence for the KDR to observe that superior judges have committed disciplinary violations.

Regarding the situation that Judge Enes Mehemetti and Ilir Bytyqi had developed, according to the KDR assessment this communication has been requested by Judge Mehmeti, in order to clarify the procedure where permission should be required to visit the detainees.

In reasoning on this decision, Judge Mehmet was reportedly contacted by the defendant's sister L.V., who was in custody in the case of “Brezovica”, who was his daughter's teacher, to ask her where permission should be sought to visit her brother who was in custody.

Under that decision, Judge Mehmet had stated before the panel that he called the judge on the phone to ask him about the procedure of obtaining permission to visit the detainees and after receiving clarifications, the same man had called the detainee's sister L.V. that he should go to court to apply for permission.

While, according to the KRC, the reason why the detainee's sister had mentioned Judge Mehmet to the legal officer to ask for permission had been only because of information he received from the latter about the procedure for applying for permission to visit the brother at the detention center in Gjilan.

While, in terms of the claim by the deputy head of the Foundation Court in Ferizaj for the violations of Judge Bytyqi that the same had exerted influence on the official for granting permission to visit, KRC has found no evidence of such a claim.

In reasoning on the KRC's decision, no influence has been proven on the legal official, except that Judge Bytyqi had asked the official that “the permit was issued, that I was asked by Judge Enes about the procedure of which permission is issued” and the same one admitted he had told official “if there are no legal conditions, there should be no release of”. And these claims, according to the Council's assessment, have not influenced the release of this permit, but that it has been more clear as to which judge should issue permission for a visit.

While concerning Judge Arben Hoti, the KRK found that his involvement in this disciplinary case is unfounded, since neither Judge Mehmet nor Judge Bytyqi had mentioned with any official of the Constitutional Court in Ferizaj the name of Judge Hoti. While the official was wondering why he mentioned Judge Hoti's name, the same had claimed to have mentioned only the name Arben, as Judge Ilir Bytyqi had told him, which Judge Bytyqi denied.

On the other hand, under that decision, the KDR confirmed that the legal official's claim that the court's professional associate had told him that “he was giving his permission to write me Judge Enes” was not, because according to the KDR based on the testimony of professional collaborator, the same had claimed that with criminal, moral and professional responsibilities no one has called him and had asked for anything to do with the case.

The Council, at the session for counseling and voting, has unanimously concluded that the superior judges are not responsible for disciplinary violations according to Article 5, paragraph 2, subparagraphers 2.9 and 2.15 of the Law for Disciplinary Responsibilities of Judges and Prosecutors, as far as the claim of influence in the criminal case called “Brezovica<1> was decided to free him from disciplinary responsibility.