“has stabbed me in my leg” -Details what the two suspects in the 18-year-old Podujevo murder declared before the court.

The two minors suspected of killing 18-year-old L.F. (the case was initially qualified as “attempted murder”), at the hearing held on January 15, 2024 at the Constitutional Court in Pristina, had rejected the request for the detention assignment and provided their versions for the event.

The prosecution's request for the detention of two minors was issued on January 15th 2024, the same day the Court ruled on the appointment of this move, when the late man was now being treated at QKUKU, who on January 20th passed away, causing criminal acts to be rescinded by the “Vras at the attempted” in <x2Vras<3>.

In the Court's Decision, Provided by “Battle for Justice”, reportedly the first minor has rejected the request for detention, claiming that he had first opened the car window on a critical day and had asked the deceased (now L. F), because you lied to me yesterday, on the other side of the road that L.F. had been.

After the question, according to the first minor, the L.F. had asked him to stop the car and be confined, which, according to him, when the deceased man (now L. F) stabbed him in the leg.

When I'm near, I've got a knife hold of my car and it's got a stuck door and it's started to bring it to me with a knife and it's stabbed me in my leg, and it's like I've got a look at it, and sometimes it's been stabbed, the second suspect is with me, he's got out of the car, he's got his hand, and he's got a 60-foot, and then he's gone with an empty car and he's got 10 feet.

After that clash, the second suspect reportedly claimed to have seen a stick and was heading for L.F. by car.

I picked up the tape and I put it in my car and I left you L., and I followed it in my car, and when he saw L., he had the knife, and I got out of him, and I wrestled with a squirrel in those moments, but I knew it was L.

As he did, he didn't see it when the other suspect (second suspect) got out of the car, nor if he had even hit L.F.

But he had admitted that the dispute had begun because his deceased had now replaced the barber's order with “and had reviled him”.

“E object to the request for the detention measure, I myself have surrendered to the police I went to the hospital and told the police myself I am a butcher, I am not trying to escape, the dispute happened the day before that, because L., had caught up in the barber's sand, and he has cursed me”, had declared the first suspect before the court.

Even the first suspect's defender, lawyer Veton Rrecaj, had rejected the prosecution's request for the detention measure, arguing that all first legal preconditions for the appointment of that move are missing.

The court ruling further states that the second minor had also rejected the request for the detention assignment, saying he felt regret over the case and did not want what happened.

I'm not about this kind of work that's going on, I'm a student, I'm a critical day, I'm just trying to separate and that two times”, the second minor had declared.

According to him, the first time now the late L.F. had stabbed the first suspect because he had opened the window and asked L.F. why he had been reviled and since the first suspect had opened the car door, the L.F. has started to stab him with a knife.

When I'm trying to hit the other parts of my body, I'm out of L's, from the first suspects, who's already closed the car door and I'm back in the car, I've told (the first suspects), I'm going home, the moment he saw the blood on his leg, he stopped the car and I've got a stick, I don't see it until I get to the point of the incident what he didn't know, he's hit the first suspect, L. (victim), first in hand, I don't really know where he's got it, but I haven't hit L.”, the second suspect is said to have declared.

He has also stated that he does not know for certain whether the deceased has been hit by a car now, while he said he opposes the detention measure, arguing that “I have never heard”.

His defender, according to authorisation, lawyer Adnan Sadiku, had rejected the prosecution's request for the detention assignment as the most serious move for the minor's presence in criminal procedure.

On the other hand, prosecutor Fatmir Behram had cleared the request for detention, and had stressed that all legal conditions for appointing detention to two minors have been met.

As for the preliminary procedure judge, Lumnije Krasniqi found that the proposal for determining the detention measure against the two suspects is based, with the argument that there is a valid suspicion that minors have carried out the work they are suspected of, on the grounds that if minors are left on freedom could influence the injured-witnesse, there is the risk of repeating criminal work.