Special Appeals I place in custody Isni Kiline

The decision was taken on January 11th 2024 by the chairman of the Appeals panel, Judge Michele Picard, reports “The Law on Justice”.

“For these reasons, Court of Appeals College: denying appeal; accepting the defense request for redescriptation; directs redescripting (IA004/F00004) in accordance with the Rule Rule 82 (5) of Rules; instructs the SPS to hand over a edited public version of response (IA004/F00003) or to show, through a file, if it can be re-classified as public, within ten days of making notice of this decision; and instructs the registry to execute re-description <x> after the ZPS approach, if it can be re-rescripted, the decision is stated by <44.

According to Apel's decision, Kilaj had presented two controversial grounds regarding the Special Foundation's decision to continue his detention against you. Kilaj had asked Apel to order his immediate release.

“In Appeal, Kilaj holds two appeals grounds consisting of alleged legal errors committed by the sole judge. Kilaj wants the College of the Court of Appeals to accept Apel and order his immediate release”, the decision says, stressing that the SPS had demanded that this call on Chilayt be rejected.

In his decision, it is said that in his appeal, Kilaj had confirmed that the only judge accepted the exact standard of testing based on suspicion concerning the validity of the detention, but according to him the implementation of that standard was wrong.

“Concretically, Kilaj argues that the only judge of the trial returned the burden of the test, suggesting that Kilaj should present a detailed “specific explanation” and “concrete support” for his claim that he had taken the sequetified material from a public source; (ii) came to the wrong conclusion that the sequentified material was not in the public domain and found that the possession of materials from Kilajt d should have demanded other persons' actions in the decision said.

Isni Kilaj had claimed that as a result of the error at the top point, the judge had erred in assessing the circumstances for possessing the material seized by him.

“In the second underpoint, Kilaj claims that, as a result of the error in the first counterpoint, the only judge erred in his assessment of the circumstances of the possession of Chilayt's classified material. Kilaj claims that the outcome of the single judge was based on “unfading allegations”, the verdict said.

In his decision, the College of Appeals points out that they are aware that no indictment has been established, recalling that there is an opportunity to prevent a suspect even before the establishment of the indictment.

At first, the College is aware of the fact that no indictment has been established. However, the panel recalls that the possibility to prevent a suspect before the establishment of the indictment is explicitly envisioned in the legal framework of the Specialised Chambers. The panel further acknowledges that any detention analysis should receive the presumption of innocence as its starting point. This results in that detention cannot be easily maintained”, the decision says.

While further it is said that the Appeals College is not convinced that the judge's conclusions of continuing his detention for Cilayan are not in line with legal standards.

In view of these, the College of Appeals finds merit in Kylay's argument that the consisting of the confirmed doubt cannot be based on just one possibility.

“Addressing Kilajt's challenge to use by the judge of the only terms “can” and “possibly”, the court notes that the terms are used in the context of the judge's single line-up with regard to an element of a specific crime, rather than its entire”, the decision says.

In Apel's decision, it is pointed out that the College has not found a mistake in implementing the standard in terms of validation as the basis for determining the detention measure.

In any case, the College recalls that decisions regarding detention are disrepute and that the only judge is in a better position to deal with the relevant factors. Therefore, the College of Appeals will not interfere unless the complainer demonstrates the existence of an apparent error in the conclusion of the single judge. The college finds that Kilaj fails to demonstrate such a mistake, and subsequently refutes Kilajt's arguments in the third underpoint”, it says further, stating that Apel subsequently rejected the first point of Kilay's complaint.

At the second point of the complaint, Kilaj had indicated that the judge of the preliminary procedure erred the law that found the detention necessary.

“Kilaj predicts that, although the judge alone accepted the exact standard of testing to prove the necessity of continuing detention, he did not implement this standard during testing assessment, and as a result, erred in estimating the existence of future obstruction risks and conducting criminal acts in the future. According to him, the finding of the judge only that he “could likely prevent prosecution where he might be charged”, “could prevent the management of the criminal procedure” and “could perform other works” do not constitute more than “an opportunity to materialise a” risk which is insufficient <x>” to meet the required standard”, the decision said.

It emphasises that the SPS has only responded that the judge has implemented the proper legal standard that has resulted in the conclusion that Malisheva's former leader posed a risk of escaping or repeating acts he is suspected of in the future.

“Colegy finds that Kilaj fails to demonstrate a mistake in supporting the judge alone in his findings as to the existence of a doubt based on achieving his agreement for a future obstruction risk and performing future works. Hence, the panel refutes Kilajt's arguments in this direction”, it says away.

Otherwise, the former head of the Malisheva municipality, Isni Kilaj, has been transferred on November 3rd to the Kosovo Specialised Chambers object ( In The Hague, after being arrested under suspicion of criminal activity against justice administration.

In addition to this work, Kilaj is also suspected of criminal activity “Pingim of official persons in carrying out official task” and “Accessing the secret of procedures”.

“Z. K ILAJ was arrested for criminal acts against justice administration, including the obstruction of official persons in performing official duties within the understanding of Kosovo's Article 401 Penal Code (KPK) of 2019, Code No. 06/L-074, and violation of the Secret of Procedures under Article 392 of KKP, and Article 15H2) of Law No. 05L-053 for Specialised Chambers and Specialised Prosecutor's Office”, the SPS report said.

According to this report, the SPS has said it takes extremely seriously obstructing justice and will continue to investigate and prosecute all those involved in any case.

The specialised prosecutor's “Office takes extremely seriously the obstruction of justice and will continue to investigate and prosecute everyone and all those involved in any case, including those who fear or intervene in witnesses, or offer financial or any other form of criminal action”, the ZPS report said.

In addition, the ZPS through the announcement said EULEX provided operational and logistical support to SPS in compliance with its mandate and under Kosovo legislation. Kosovo Police also provided operational support to the SPS.