Appeal confirms four-year prison sentence against accused of burning journalist Selimi's garage

The Constitutional Court in Pristina on 15 February 2024 had sentenced the accused Limani to four years in prison for causing general danger.

Against this act, the prosecution had filed a complaint with the damaged party's representative, lawyer Kujtim Krvenshi, due to the verdict on the sentence, with proposals for the complaining court to be changed and the accused being pronounced the harshest sentence.

On the other hand, Lieman's defender, lawyer Fanol Krasniqi, had filed complaints because of the substantial violation of criminal procedure provisions, the wrong or incomplete confirmation of the actual situation, violation of the Criminal Law, and the verdict on the sentence, with the proposal that the complaint be annulled and the case turned into retrial.

But the second instance, through the act of prejudice compiled on December 11, 2024, found that the defendant's defender complaint is not based, whereas that of the damaged party is illegal.

As for the complaint claims pertaining to substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions, Apel found that the defendant's defence claims do not stand and that there are no violations which would condition the annulment of the complaint.

According to Appeal, the device of the act is clear, understandable and concrete, and is in full compliance with reasoning. It says that in a device of complaining bias, the accused's incriminating actions have been described and that it is argued that the accused Limani has set fire to the damaged garage door, damaging the damaged vehicle parked near the garage.

“Therefore, in a concrete case, there are incriminating actions that constitute objective elements and subjects of criminal activity causing the total risk of Article 356 par.1 of KPRK, including here, then, the motive for committing criminal work, so the reasons why, the accused had set fire to the damaged garage, so it is about a preparation of a tank of gasoline, which, more then, has put the same thing on the garage door and the bottle was lit, and the same word was written in the window of <x>

Appeals ' decision states that even statements of the injured have confirmed the facts and circumstances mentioned above. Similarly, material evidence in the subject's paperwork has reportedly proved that the accused on the critical day has taken incriminating action in the direction of the criminal offense he was convicted of. And the identification of the accused is confirmed by photographs at the scene.

In the Apel's act, it is said that even the injured Selimi has confirmed the facts and circumstances of how the accused has now talked to him about an article he wrote long ago as a journalist, and by witness Rexhep Selimi proves how it came to the burning of the garage.

Apel estimates that even the accused before the prosecution had accepted the incriminating actions described as in a device pertaining to putting a fire in the garage, but he was not hired by the legal qualifications of the criminal act - attempted murder - has acted equally in judicial examination, but denying that it was not the intention to hurt or deprive the life of the injured.

Always according to Appeal, there is no stand for defence claims that the first degree of judgment has based on even evidence that has not been prosecuted in the judiciary at all, nor those that have not taken into account the defender's proposals. According to Appeal, there have been no concrete proposals pertaining to the elements of the criminal act “Cause of the bloody risk”, for which the accused has been found guilty after resuming criminal acts.

“... it has done an analysis of all the evidence prosecuted during the trial and related to it has presented its conclusions, which, as right, objective and legal, approved by this court as well, which means that, rightly, the court of the first degree ruled, is that it is a criminal act to cause the general risk of Article 356, par.1 of KPRK, carried out directly, and not as if the defender claims to be the accused, that it can be spoken of another criminal act,<1>, the Appel decision is said.

The defence has also claimed that evidence has been wrongly and unilaterally assessed, therefore that no facts and circumstances dealing with the damage done to the injured. Said the injured had only been damaged by a car worth 1,000 and 500 euros, while in the risk of the lives of the injured, since they left home, according to him, their lives were not at risk, and it cannot be found that the elements of the work for which the accused was found guilty have been completed.

Thus, Appeals found that such claims do not stand because when the garage door was set on fire, damaged with two children were at home, and after being reported to fire by the other witness, they left the house. Thus, along with the cause of damage, the lives of the injured have been endangered.

Thus, Apel estimates that the completion of the Foundation is correct and that it is undoubtedly proven that the accused has taken incriminating actions for which he has been convicted and convicted. The second degree, estimates there are no claims that the Criminal Law was violated at the expense of the accused.

Unfounded, Apel also finds claims about the sentence, since, as the defense claims, they have not been taken on the basis of extenuating circumstances, but as burdensome circumstances, the accused's criminal past has been taken.

“According to the assessment of the Court of Appeals, the alleged complaints do not stand, because, the first instance court, right and full degree, has ascertained and assessed all circumstances affecting the appointment and height of the sentence...”, the verdict is further said.

Appeal estimates that the Foundation as a serious circumstance has received the defendant's degree of criminal responsibility, the degree of social risk of criminal activity, the determination shown in the conduct of criminal acts, the fact that the same one has been convicted before with 5 acts of strict form, and that he was prepared in advance by means to carry out the criminal work.

However, extenuating circumstances are said to have been taken because the accused is a parent, has expressed regret, and has repented.

The damaged party's complaint, on the other hand, has been rendered unfair because it is estimated that the damaged side cannot file complaints about criminal work in question.

Regarding this decision, contacted by “Justice Vow “, the injured Selimi said it is important that the Court has not taken on the basis of the slander the accused has committed against him. He said the verdict in question is a good precedent for all journalists.

And what's very important is that the court has not taken into account the low slander that the attacker has used as the last “ ” to hit me. And in Apel's Act, there are several references and a strain that the whole case has to do with my work as a journalist. This decision is a good precedent for all journalists, because it is one of the highest sentences given to a criminal genocide who dares to take actions that risk not only the life of a journalist but also his family”, Selimi said.

The journalist added that for the material and spiritual damage done to him and his family on this occasion, he will exercise civil indictments.

“About the material and spiritual damage caused to me and the family, as a result of fire and slander, we will proceed with civil lawsuit at the Constitutional Court; as the Apelist Action” recommends, Selimi said.

Otherwise, the Constitutional Court in Pristina on February 15th 2024 had sentenced accused Arsim Limani to four years in prison for causing general danger. In the full trial, the Foundation has listed the reasons why the accused requalified criminal acts.

Limani was charged that in March 2023, he burned the garage to Kosovo Radio Television Editor (RTK), Alban Selimi.

Initially, Limani was charged with criminal work “severe attempted murder” on the part of the Basic Prosecutor in Pristina, but during the proclamation of the indictment, this work was revived in “Cause of total risk”.

According to the Court, the evidence administered during the trial has been managed to shape the criminal record of “General risk cause”, also given that Limani had left the message “Don't eat shit too” Thus, according to the court, this message did not initially consume the criminal offence of the attempted attempted assassination, since there was a murder in the act of intent, which the message left to prove that Lieman's purpose was not murder.

According to the ruling, legal qualifications made by the prosecution's body do not force the court to sentence the accused in connection with that legal qualifications, so even according to court by the evidence presented has been shaped the criminal act of “General risk cause”. The founder stressed that such requalification has been made as a result of full and fair analysis of the evidence administered during the judicial review (Analytic video-inciation report, photo documentation, CD, witness statement A. S, V. M-S, and R.S.

Requalification from criminal activity “heavy attempted murder” by Article 173, par.1, score1.5 over KPRK's 28th article in criminal work “The cause of total risk” from Article 356, par.1 at KPRK is the result of a full and fair analysis of the evidence administered in the trial.

According to the first degree, the fact that there was no intention of the murder of the injured Alban Selimi by the accused Limani is seen in the situation that Liemann's action was undertaken when the injured Selimi was not at home and that if there was a need for murder he would do when Selim was at home.

If the accused intended to kill the injured, he would have acted when the injured person was at home”, the decision said.

Also, the court in its ruling has clarified that evidence administered during the trial has failed to prove what has been the cause of remaining the attempted work, thus failing to form criminal acts and serious murder in attempted.

The managed evidence also did not prove which was the cause of the attempted criminal offence committed by Article 173 par.1.5 concerning KPRK's 28x1>, the decision is further said.

Meanwhile, regarding the decision on criminal sanctions, the Foundation has clarified that for criminal acts “Cause of general risk” minimum sentence ranges from six months to 5 years and that with the proclamation of a four-year sentence, the court is within legal limits.

As a serious situation, the Court in a concrete case against Lieman has calculated the high degree of participation of the accused, determined to commit criminal acts, since he has previously carried out preparations by taking the gasoline bottle and the fact that he has been convicted before. As extenuating circumstances, however, it has found that Limani has expressed repentance and regret.

According to the indictment filed by the Constitutional Prosecutor in Pristina on 18 August 2023, it is said that on 16 March 2023, in the garage that was attached to the house of now damaged Alban Selimi, in Fushe-Kosovo, accused Arsim Limani of motives so far unknown, has attempted to deprive him of the same life, which in those moments was not at home, risking the lives of other family members, his wife and two children respectively. This attempt, the accused reportedly did after approaching the garage door, and he threw a bottle of hot gasoline there, which involved the garage, and the high fever damaged the damaged car. /Betimi for Justice/