Appeal confirms the 17-year prison sentence to Buta's brother for killing 30-year-old in Ferizaj

Apel has refused the complaint of the Constitutional Prosecution in Ferizaj, the authorised representatives of the damaged V.H. party, and the joint complaint of defenders of the accused Januzi, while confirming the Constitutional Court's act on Ferizaj.

Initially, Appeals points out that against the Constitutional Decision in the legal term, the Constitutional Prosecutor at Ferizaj had filed a complaint against essential violations of criminal procedure provisions, violation of the Penal Law, wrong and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation and sentence ruling, with the proposal that the complaint act be annulled, and the case be returned to restoration or changed, and the accused be convicted under the proposal in the indictment, and be pronounced higher prison sentences.

On the other hand, the party's representative, lawyer Gazmend Rexhepi, had filed complaints because of the sentence, with proposals for the complaint court to be changed and the accused pronounced a higher prison sentence than the Foundation has pronounced.

On the other hand, defenders of the accused, lawyers Florin Vretopi and Arian Hetemi filed complaints because of the essential violation of criminal procedure provisions, wrong and incomplete proof of the actual state, violation of the Penal Law and sentence, with the drafts for the complaint case to be annulled and the case changed, so that the accused be found guilty of criminal work <x0Vras conducted in a state of strong mental shock<1> and the apparent sentence is pronounced.

The defendant's defense has also filed answers to the prosecution's complaint, demanding that the prosecution's complaint and the damaged side be rejected as groundless and be taken in proportion to the complaint filed by the defence.

The Court of Appeals, after reviewing all paperwork on this penal-juridic case, studios the complaint act and after praising the alleged claims in complaints and complaints, found that complaints are not based.

The Court of Appeals estimates that there are no claims that there are violations of the penal procedure provisions for which this court, under official duty, cares for, which would condition the annulment of the court.

According to Appeal, the device of the act is clear, understandable and concrete, and there is also support in evidence and other subject paperwork and, first of all, in terms of the motive for committing criminal acts, then the manner of committing criminal acts.

“... From witnesses R. S., V. H., A. S., B. J., B.B., R. Mr., and L. L., but, even from the defendant's own defense, poor reports have been confirmed between the accused and now the late G. H. who had previously been good friends among themselves, and later, their relations were broken and that long time before the critical day, at first due to a debt now demanded of the accused and finally due to the burning of the accused's vehicle, where, for this, the accused with the other members of his family, had suspected the deceased, and then, the critical day has also come to the deprivation from the life now felt by Gri. H”, says the Appeal decision.

According to the Appeals Act, besides the motive, the device also describes incriminating actions of the accused Januzi, which constitute the objective elements and subject of the criminal work of “Vrasing”, where, in addition, the device also describes the content of the complaining bias clearly resulting in “Vrasje “and non-x4Vrasje being carried out under the influence of the strong mental shock<5>, as assuming that the defense of the <6Vras) is not as serious as the prosecutor claims.

The appeal points out that in the concrete case neither subjective element nor the target of criminal activity “heavy murder”, for what, it says, later, in this respect, even has rightly been made to recall the criminal work in “Vry”.

The second degree estimates that the foundation act is in full compliance with reasoning. It says that sufficient reasons have been given, and in terms of assessing the material evidence on subject documents, including the expertise of psychiatry, where it is rightly stated that on the basis of facts and circumstances proved by the parties, it cannot be proved that it has been the manner of now bringing the accused to severe mental shock and that it has been able to affect the conduct of the criminal work.

According to Apel, material evidence undoubtedly proves that the deceased's critical day has not now taken any incriminating action toward the accused, which in this way does not support the complaint that the first - degree court has unjustly rejected the defenders' proposals for other psychiatric expertise, for listening to other witnesses, reconcorring the scene, for reading witness statements, provided in the Police and Prosecutor.

Therefore, access to the crucial facts has been right and legal, no evidence has remained unequivocal and except that they have been correctly justified, and that has been fully and accurately argued”, the decision says.

Furthermore, Appeals estimates that on the basis of evidence and other case records, the actual situation has been confirmed in full and in light of the defendant's defense, statements of eyewitnesses at the scene, but also evidence, therefore stressing that there is no essential violation of criminal procedure provisions, as if allegedly in the common complaint of defenders of the accused.

Thus, according to Apel's decision in view of all the cited circumstances as well as the more detailed circumstances and reasons highlighted in the complaint act, it turns out that the conclusion of the first-degree court, that the accused Januz has performed the deeds for which he was convicted, is just, and that it is undoubtedly proven that the accused has undertaken all incriminating acts that constitute the traits of criminal acts he has even been convicted of.

Hence, complaints are said to have not contained that the Criminal Law was violated at the expense of the accused, as if claiming the defense, or, in favour of the accused, as the prosecution claims in its complaint.

According to the assessment of the Court of Appeals, unfounded claims are also due to the sentence. It says that the first - degree court, right and complete, has recorded and praised all the circumstances affecting the appointment of type and height of sentence.

Appell points out that the foundation as a extenuating circumstance has taken on the fact that the accused has partially pleaded guilty to the criminal offence of “Vrasing”, but according to the other qualifications from the complaint act, that the same has repented, the condition of the accused, who has suffered serious bodily injury, for which, even had to be operated several times and that he has asked the deceased family for forgiveness.

However, it is said that grave circumstances have been taken in the manner of committing criminal acts, either the way it has come to the life deprivation of the late G.H., the high degree of will-end insistence on carrying out criminal work, then the fact that the accused has been convicted before, and that he was sentenced to a unique sentence of 17 years in prison.

According to Appeal, the prosecution's claims are not based, because the prosecution in complaint, except that it repeats the critical circumstances imposed by the court in the first degree, there has not been a mention of any other circumstances of influence to pronounce a different sentence by the one the court of the first degree. Even in the claims of the authorised representative of the damaged party, it is said that, in all, more is said to be spoken about the legal qualifications of criminal acts and that the accused had to be found guilty of criminal offence of “grave murder”, not “vras”, which is considered to be a mild sentence.

Also reportedly, the complaints of the defendant's defenders are not based on the complaint, for there is no other extenuating circumstances that would affect the smoothing of the sentence, whereas in terms of having been convicted before, they do not stand up to the complaint, because the criminal acts for which the accused has been found guilty by a fair trial of the form being displayed by number and date, and also known for the acts of prosecution.

However, Apel mentions that the Court of the First Century highlighted this in the section of the court's judgment at the bottom of the page, meaning that the first - degree court has rightly assessed even the critical circumstances in question.

And taking into account all extenuating and exacerbating circumstances, Apel says that the Foundation set out as a device of complaining judgment.

Therefore, given all the circumstances outlined in the complaint, the concrete circumstances, the way the critical event has developed, especially when, the accused has shown persistence in carrying out the criminal work, then, that the same has been condemned before, then it turns out that the condemnation which the court of the first degree has pronounced, the accused is fair and legitimate, then, the same is in harmony with the intensity of the social risk of the criminal work and the degree of criminal responsibility is in the function of the province and the individual general, and the punishment will be carried out with the pre-prisonable aim of KCHCHCHCHI, in the end.

According to the indictment, on May 28, 2022, about 00:53, in Ferizaj, on the “Rejep Bislimi “, respectively, prior to the introduction of the market “Exchange Market”, the defendant standing Januzi, deliberately and preliminary preparations had deliberately and deliberately deprived of life now of the deceased G.H. and with that case had endangered the life of Maliq Lafi, who had been ahead of the market entrance as well as others inside the market.

In the indictment, it is said that after an earlier dispute over a brother's car of the now undefected man for whom the defendant has claimed to have been burned on the part of the deceased now, to meet the deceased now six times in his direction with firearms and as a result of shots from his wounds, G.H changes lives as listed in the August 22nd 2022 autopsy report, with which the cause of death had been revealed, resulting from gunshot wounds taken by firearms.

In this regard, Januzi was charged with committing criminal work “grave murder” by Article 173, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1.5 of the Penal Code.

According to the device II of this indictment, defendant Januzi was charged with having mastered the brandy “gun from indefinite until May 28th 2022, in Ferizaj, without authorization and contrary to the applicable law regarding weapons in Kosovo. SAUER model 38H”, with a clip with a capacity of 8 rounds, with which the weapon had carried out the criminal work described as in the device I of this indictment, where the same was seized.

With this, it was accused of committing criminal work “keep ownership, control or unauthorized possession of weapons” by Article 366, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code. /Betimy for Justice

Note: The individuals mentioned in this article are considered innocent unless the court finds them guilty with decision of form.