12 minutes agoAppely decides the prosecutor's complaint about the court's expulsion in the case that Skender Hyseni is being charged with not reporting property
Periskopi(3 years ago)
(3 years ago)The Court of Appeals has dismissed prosecutor Besart Mustafa's complaint about the expulsion of Judge Sabit Sadiki in the criminal case, where Skender Hyseni is charged with having the former State Comminator for Dialogue at the Office of the Prime Minister, not making the exact declaration of property. The Appeal Act, which has provided “betim [...]
The Court of Appeals has dismissed prosecutor Besart Mustafa's complaint about the expulsion of Judge Sabit Sadiki in the criminal case, where Skender Hyseni is charged with having the former State Comminator for Dialogue at the Office of the Prime Minister, not making the exact declaration of property.
The Appeal Act, which has provided “Justice Vow”, was taken on July 7th, 2023.
“The State Prosecutor Besart Mustafa's complaint is rejected and denied, while the Constitutional Court Act in Pristina of June 12th, 2023, proves”, the verdict said.
In the argument of the verdict, the Constitutional Court in Pristina reportedly has rejected the plea filed by prosecutor Paulin Pashku for the expulsion of Judge Sabit Sadiku from prosecution and ruling on this criminal case as unequivocal.
However, it is said that against this act of complaint, prosecutor Bessart Mustafa has been put forward because of the violation of criminal procedure provisions and the misappropriation of the actual situation, with proposals that the Court of Appeals pleads to cancel and the subject return it to restoration.
In this regard, Court of Appeals Chairman Valon Totaj, after reviewing the prosecutor's complaint for exemption, the judge's statement, whose expulsion has been requested, as well as other subject papers, in the sense of KPPRK's Article 38, decided to reject prosecutor Mustaf's complaint as unfounded.
In the argument of the verdict, prosecutor Paulin Pashk, in the trial, had argued in the matter of the judge's question to witness Blerim Kelmendi, representative of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption (APK), praising that the same was biased and had raised questions in a completely biased and biased manner, and that the judge in question has not generally included Pashku prosecutor's remarks in the process, with what the judge considered to have committed violations of Article 5 and 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
According to the president of Appeals, Totaj did not stand up to the State Prosecutor's complaint that the first-degree court had decided fairly and legally when it rejected the request for exemption of the judge of the case, as such requests cannot reveal the circumstances that could question the objective and impartiality of the judge alone.
In addition, according to Apel's president's assessment, the premonition of questions to the witness on the part of the judge alone cannot be considered as an act that aims to clarify how the criminal case will finally be decided or, in the other case, to question the objective and impartiality of the judge, because the presentation of questions on the part of the same must be meant as the act which is intended to prove in full fact the situation.
Thus, Apel's decision says that in this regard, it results in unconventional claims by the State Prosecutor, which the court ruled to refuse as groundless, while the accepted decision to prove.
Otherwise, at the hearing of witness Kelmendi on June 7, 2023, prosecutor Pasci had demanded the exception of Judge Sadiki, since the same had asked the witness whether the official who claims his wealth and wealth is bought through relevant institutions, was it a secret obligation if the payment is made through the bank, where according to the prosecutor, it was a question that clearly creates bias and demanded that this session be suspended.
Otherwise, on these charges, Skender Hyseni has been declared innocent at the initial session held on January 12th 2022.
While the Constitutional Court in Pristina has ruled on February 23rd 2022, it has rejected the request for impeachment of the indictment and objections of evidence exercised by the defendant's defender with the argument that the collected evidence provides sufficient grounds for well-founded doubt that the defendant committed the criminal act, which is placed on him and has grounds for establishing the current indictment.
Against this act, within the legal term the complaint has exercised defender Hyseni, lawyer Podvorica because of the substantial violation of criminal procedure provisions, the wrong enforcement of criminal law and the error and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation. While the Appeals Prosecutor has proposed that the defendant's defender's complaint be rejected as unfounded, while the complaining act be confirmed.
The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, has confirmed the indictment against accused Hyseni, while attorney Podvorica's request has been turned down as unfounded.
According to the indictment exercised by the Constitutional Prosecutor in Pristina, established on August 14th 2020 in Pristina, Skender Hyseni is charged that in the quality of the senior public official, state co-ordinator for Dialog at the Prime Minister's Office, on the occasion of taking this task, he has deliberately failed to submit the required data in the form for property statements, delivered to the Anti-Corruption Agency (AKK).
The incident says Hyseni did not declare the type car “Volkswagen”, the 2013 production year, worth 13 thousand and 300 euros, owned by his wife.
With these actions, the prosecution charges accused Skender Hyseni that he committed criminal work “Absent or false reporting of property, income, gift, other material benefits or financial obligations”, from Article 430, paragraph 2 of the Penal Code, where the offender is fined and sentenced to six months to five years. Fines pronounced by this article may be daily and can be pronounced until the official observes the command, verdict, or almighty judgment subject to action.
