6 minutes agoKFOR threat case in Prizren, suspect's defence says his arrest took place for show
Periskopi(2 years ago)
(2 years ago)Days earlier, the Constitutional Court in Pristina has assigned the detention measure to two suspects A.K. and I.H., suspected of criminal activity “Resilination of United Nations Organisation personnel and staff in relations with them”, because they allegedly threatened Italian KFOR in Prizren's Lubicheva fasat. Regarding the pronunciation of [...]
In response submitted to Gazeta Expes, defence will reportedly prove there have been no threatening words of the A.K. towards KFOR members, and that they think the same will be declared innocent by the Court. The lawyers also rely on it when they say that after the formal complaint, the A.K. has replaced the detention measure with that of house arrest.
The defense will prove to him that on the critical day there was no threat, so no threatening words were used, and much more have not been prevented from performing Italian KFOR duties. So we're enough to analyze this fact of how it's possible to become a huge boom when our defender Ahmet Krasniqi used his words in the direction of Italian KFOR are these “because you don't go north there” and now become spectacular units in his house and you're looking at descriptions from different times”, it says in their response.
According to A.K.'s defense, in this case there are no elements of the threat.
This is surprising for us to protect ourselves because the threat element that is regulated under the Kosovo Penal Code definitely envisions the way and the circumstances for which cases there are many more threats when, in the concrete case, it's about international body like the Italian KFO so how it's possible to threaten that only one of us should have a situation of obstruction in the development of KFOR's duties then it might be understood Ahmet Krasniqi's criminal responsibility, but with the word he used here that each of us can reconciles here that there are no elements of the <1x>
Lawyers Gent and Bland Djind say they will also consider the dilemmas “cii international body has acted, so is it the Italian KFOR or the carabirin”.
The “will be seen as in some way the local entry case had acted because in the village bar of Lubievo for the defense that we represented there was another person who, to the same state of Italy, was issued the same is allegedly issued as the same has been suspected of carrying out criminal work in the state of Italy and now for protection here we are expected to provide the dilemmas that Italian KFOR has acted here or Karabini and has acted in some authorization to the Italian KFOR has acted on KFOR or the 16x>
In a long reaction from lawyers it is said that their client “on the day of the incident he was sitting with another person, and the person who started his verbal confrontation with KFOR members, our client Ahmet Krasniqi did not even know the person standing at the table. No offensive flag or pressure has been put on members of KFOR Italian. He was especially welcome. KFORI Italian carabinieri”.
As a result, his defense considers that his arrest is unfounded and “without any concrete evidence”.
The defendants A.K. and IH, according to the Court, are suspected that, in co-ordination with the 2602.2024 date, around 10:00 in a coffee shop in the village of Lubicevo, in Prizren municipality, they had offended and then seriously injured members of the Italian KFOR that they would kill, who are on a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo with UN mandate.
“Taking on the basis of the fact that the criminal work they are suspected of took place against KFOR members who act in Kosovo to ensure a safe and secure environment, as well as for the freedom of movement for Kosovo citizens, so there is real danger that with their stand in freedom, the same could repeat criminal work or complete the amended work and, according to the court's assessment, the appointment of detention against the defendants in this phase of criminal procedure is more reasonable and necessary for the successful and effective implementation of this criminal procedure and for ensuring the presence of the defendants in the procedure, the court says.
