The trial against Sami Lushtak begins for organised crime and other criminal acts

The trial of Sami Lushtaku, Sheremet Jashari, Rrustem Rukoli, Rexhep Jota, Skender Tahiri, Fatmir Mjaku and Bajram Dibrani in the same case they are charged with alleged crime and obstructing official testimony or procedure, as well as intimidation during the criminal procedure. Judgment of the same began after two initial failures, reports [...]
Judgment against the same began after two initial failures, reports “Justice Vow”.
Because of the absence of accused Lushtaku and the doctor, the June 5 session of this year had failed.
However, in the absence of lawyer Nasuf Hasani, the authorised defender of the accused Skender Tahiri's hearing has been interrupted and the same is expected to continue in 15 minutes until the same appears at the courtroom.
Otherwise, Lushtaku accused Lushtaku and all others are present at this session.
For those accused of Rrustem Rockolli, Fatmir Mojak, Rexhep Jota, Skender Tahiri, Sheremet Jashari and Bajram Dibrani for points 16, 17 and 18 of the indictment, which has to do with preventing witnesses, had the procedure isolated.
Sami Lushtaku and Ismet Haxha will also be tried for the rest of the indictment, which concerns escape from the CKUK.
For points 16, 17 and 18 of the indictment, Sami Lushtaku, Ismet Haxja, Rrustem Rrucoliki, Fatmir Mjaku, RexJota, Skender Tahiri, Sheremet Jashar and Bajram Dibrani are charged with criminal acts “preventing evidence or official procedure”, “intimidation during criminal procedure” and <x> participation in organised criminal group”.
In this case, Emrush Thaqi, Shemsi Hajrizi, Sami Lushtaku, Sahit Jashari, Ismet Haja, Mergim Lushtaku, Dardan Geci, Dervisolli Bashki, Valon Behrahaj, Silvert Behramaj, Yll Blakaj, Gzim Ahmeti, Geevdet Zena, Merve Hasani Lushtaku, Agim Ukaj, Ismail Dibrani, Sami Djoka, Negib Shatri Shatri.
The Constitutional Court in Pristina, on April 5, 2018, had rejected the defence requirements for dropping the indictment and rejecting evidence, arguing that it had proved that there was no predestination of criminal acts and that the defence has not presented sufficient evidence to approve them.











