The murder of Marigona Osman: Appeals cancels Sejdiu's Parliamentary Act of Retrial

The Court of Appeals has turned the case against indictees Dardan Krivaqa and Arber Sejdiu into retrial over charges of the murder of Marigona Osmani, thus cancelling the decision of Ferizaj Foundation Court, which Krivac had sentenced Sejdiu to life imprisonment for 15 years.

Apeli's announcement reportedly that Krivaqa and Sejdiu will remain in custody, until another ruling on the part of the first-degree court.

The Supreme Court of Appeals' “Colegy has found that the essential violations of the penal procedure provisions consist of the fact that device I and II of the complaint is unequivocal, unintelligent, and not in line with the legal provisions which form elements of criminal acts for which the accused have been found guilty, because the legal provisions from Article 173 paragraph 1 under paragraph 1.4 The KPRK, for the first defendant, refers to the life deprivation of the other person in a cruel or subtle manner and not to jealous motives, while in terms of Article 173 of the KPRK, the second - degree court stressed that such a circumstance should be proved by the experts in the respective field, which, in a concrete case, was not made on the part of the first court”.”, the report states.

“As to the second defendant A. S, the Court of Appeals has estimated that no clear and concrete reasons have been given in relation to criminal acts if the accused's actions are in accordance with the characteristics of the criminal conduct for which the same has been found guilty. On the basis of the second degree college superiors, it has come to the conclusion that in this criminal case, the inaccuracy contains substantial violations from the penal procedure provisions, as there is no reason for the crucial facts which are essential to proving criminal responsibility for the accused, for which the second-degree court has given concrete guidelines that should be eliminated in the retrial phase, by the court of the pre-ex1> ”, further in the decision.

Marigona Osmani was 18 years old when he was killed on August 22nd in 2021 at the residence of the chief accused, Dardan Krivaqa, in the town of Ferizaj. Sejdiu's Krivaqa had sent the victim's lifeless body to the city hospital and then fled in an unknown direction.

Full communication:

Kosovo's Appeals Court, the Department of Internal Crime, with the PACE Act.N.677/23, dated 11,01.24, has approved the Constitutional Prosecutor's complaint in Ferizaj, complaints of defenders charged with D. K, av. Admir Salihu and A.S., av. Arbnora Shefkiu, av. Avni Ibrahimi, also on official duty, has cancelled the act of Constitutional Court in Ferizaj . . . At point 2 of the acting device, this court, the prosecution's complaint claims and those of the defenders for other complaining bases, as well as the representative of the damaged side, has now considered them as uninjured, while at the point III of the actation device, has ruled that the accused, D.K. and A.S, remain in custody until a decision on the other side of the first degree court.

Under the Act of Foundation Court in Ferizaj... K, found guilty of a criminal murder committed by Article 173 paragraph 1 under paragraph 1.4 KPRK, while accused A.S. He was convicted of a criminal offence in committing a serious murder by Article 173 paragraph 1 under paragraph 1.4 about Article 33 of KPRK, so that accused D. K has been sentenced to life imprisonment, in which sentence has been calculated even the time spent in detention from 24.08.2021 from now on, while accused A. S, he has been sentenced to prison terms of 15 years, in which the sentence has been calculated for the past time in custody from 22,08.2021 onward, but no longer than the sentence pronounced in court. But at the 2nd point of the action device, accused D. K, because of the criminal offense by Article 227 paragraphs 4 under paragraph 4.1 concerning KPRK paragraph 1 and accused A. S, because of a criminal offense aid in the violation of Article 227 paragraphs 4 under paragraph 4.1 concerning paragraph 1 and Article 33 of KPRK, has been cleared of charges since no single evidence has proved that the accused committed these crimes. The first-instance court of V.O. and M.O. has guided them to civil conflict for their property.

The Court of Appeals, with the PAK's decision,677/23, dated 11,01.2024, has approved, the Constitutional Prosecutor's complaint at Ferizaj, complaints of defenders of accused D. K, av. Admir Salihu and A.S., av. Arbnora Shefkiu, av. Avni Ibrahimi also on official duty, the Constitutional Court Act at Ferizaj . . At point 2 of the acting device, this court, the prosecution's complaint claims and those of the defenders for other complaining bases, as well as the representative of the damaged side, has now considered them as uninjured, while at the point III of the actation device, has ruled that the accused, D.K. and A.S, remain in custody until a decision on the other side of the first degree court. In reasoning of the second-instance court ruling, he has estimated that the prosecution's and defenders' claims regarding essential violations of the procedural provisions remain, so that there are violations of provisions from Article 384 paragraph 2.7, concerning Article 369 paragraph 6 and 7 of the KPP, as well as violations of the provision of Article 384 paragraph 2.1, concerning Article 361 paragraph 2 of the KPP, which conditions the annulment of the complaint act. The College of the Court of Appeals has found that essential violations of the penal procedure provisions consist of the fact that device I and II of the complaint is unequivocal, unintelligent, and not in line with the legal provisions that form elements of criminal acts for which accused have been convicted, because the legal provisions from Article 173 paragraphs 1 under paragraph 1.4 The KPRK's first indictee refers to the life deprivation of the other person in a cruel or subtle manner and not to jealous motives, while in terms of Article 173 of KPRK, the second - degree court stressed that such a circumstance must be proved by the experts of the respective field, which, in a concrete case, has not been done on the side of the first court. As for the second defendant A. S, the Court of Appeals has estimated that no clear and concrete reasons have been given in relation to criminal acts if the accused's actions are in accordance with the characteristics of the criminal conduct for which the same has been found guilty. On the basis of the second degree college superiors, it has come to the conclusion that in this criminal case, the inaccuracy contains substantial violations from criminal procedure provisions, as there is no reason for the crucial facts which are essential for proving the criminal responsibility of the accused, for which the second-degree court has given concrete guidelines that should be eliminated in the retrial phase, by the court of the first degree.