Appeal turns war crimes case against Dusko Arsic into retrial

The Court of Appeals has turned the case against war crimes indictees, Dusko Arsic, sentenced by the Constitutional Court in Pristina to 13 years in prison

“APROVOTIONS were based on complaints brought by the accused D.A. and his av defender. Nebojsa Vlajic, while the Pristina Constitutional Court's act of judgment, the Special Department, SP.nr.46/22, dated 22,03.2024, ANULOUS and subject is converted into retrial and re-establishment”, says the Court of Appeals ruling, reports the “Justice Vow”.

To the Foundation's decision, the complaint had prompted protector A. K, lawyer Arsim Krasniqi because of the verdict regarding criminal sanctions, proposing the Court of Appeals to approve the complaint and change the complaint.

Also, the complaint against the Foundation's decision has prompted the accused Arsefk with the claim that there has been substantial violations of the penal procedure's provisions, wrong and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation, and violation of criminal law with proposals that the Kosovo Court of Appeals approves the complaint, amend the complaint, and release it in a lack of evidence.

Also, the complaint had been exercised by the defender of the accused, lawyer Nebojsa Vlajic, because of substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions, wrong and incomplete proof of the actual situation, proposing the Court of Appeals to approve the complaint and change the complaint brought about by releasing the accused in absence of evidence or the subject into retrial.

While the Appeals Prosecutor, through a parachute of June 18, 2024, has proposed that the complaint of the affected representative A. K, Arsim Krasniqi, be dismissed as unfair and complaints exercised on the part of accused Arsreq and his defender Vlajic to be refused as groundless, and also the complaining act to prove itself.

The Court of Appeals has analysed the complaint and praised the complaint claims of the accused and his defender, as well as the answers to the complaints exercised, given the complaints of the accused and his defender and the injured, viewing them as uninjured.

“The complaint of the accused D.A. and av. Vlachs are based, while the complaint of the injured A.K. presented via av. Krasniqi is considered non-injury”, said in Apel's decision.

After assessing complaints and subject papers, the Court of Appeals, through the ruling compiled on November 4th, 2024, has assessed that the complaining act is included in essential violations of the criminal procedure's provisions, alleged on the part of the defendant's defender's complaint.

The findings of Appeals are said to have failed to provide the reasons for crucial facts in court and to assess full evidence and evidence. Also, contradictions in the evidence presented have not been clarified, and sufficient explanations have been provided.

“The bias lacks the reasons for the crucial facts, has not been fully and comprehensively assessed the evidence and evidence, no necessary explanations have been given regarding contradictions in their material”, the decision says.

College notes that the identification of the D.A. accused and statements of the injured A.K. not treated properly. And the description of incriminating facts, such as deportation, evacuation, firing, and killing, have not been demonstrated and based on sufficient evidence.

The college has estimated that the first degree court is obliged to analyze the evidence applied to the judicial review and, after their assessment, complying with legal provisions, to determine whether the crucial facts of the case are proven.

Always according to Appeal, the Foundation should provide full reason and explanation for the circumstances described by the writer who identified the accused as a person with a headscarf and unformed with a washing machine”.

According to Appeal, these circumstances objectively make accurate identification difficult.

Apel has directed that the Foundation should explain how it has come to a conclusion to an accurate identification and which additional factors have supported this identification despite difficulties, that if the offender has previously recognized the accused, it is imperative that the court clarify this earlier recognition, including the circumstances under which recognition has been realised.

Appeal also notes that there are considerable contradictions in evidence cited by witnesses that are incompatible with crucial facts, in which these contradictions relate to the mention of the accused's name D.A. by the injured A.K., raising doubts about the accuracy and sustainability of the evidence presented.

Also in Appeal's findings, the description of incriminating actions in the device is said to be too general, both in terms of time (then January-June 1999) and in terms of concrete actions for which the accused has been convicted and convicted.

According to Appeal, for participation in the expulsion and deportation of the citizens of Pristina and the district, the description includes a vast geographic space, which has not been sufficiently defined and specific data on the exact location of these actions.

The description of such incriminating actions is quite generalising both in terms of the January June 1999 period and incriminating concrete actions for which the accused has been convicted and convicted”, states the Appeals verdict.

The Appeals College also notes that the incriminating content in the act's device, related to deportation, the deportation of Albanian civilian citizens, the firing of houses, mistreatment, injuries and murders, in addition to the current cases related to the deceased. St. and the injured A.K., does not match the evidence administered during the trial.

The “The evidence presented is intended to support the charges specified in the indictment. For this reason, there must be a clear link between the incriminating mass and the evidence reviewed”, highlighted in the Appeal decision.

On the other hand, the Court of Appeals appealed to the defender A. K, lawyer Arsim Krasniqi, has considered it harmless, since the act has annulled and turned it into retrial and restoration.

The second degree estimates that the Constitutional Act contains substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions, and has also directed that in retrial and re-establishment the first-degree court should do.

“Forgetting the testimony of the injured A.K., as well as the testimony of other witnesses, regarding the identification of the accused, to explain inconsistencies and irregularities in their evidence, data during the investigative phase and judicial review. I appreciate claims related to the ballistic examination report of metal fragments. As well as taking into account remarks on the description of the accused's incriminating actions and ensuring their concreteisation and specification”, it is further said in Apel's decision.

According to Appeal, the Foundation should ensure that the actual description of incriminating actions in the trial device is consistent with evidence administered during the trial review.

The Court of the First Stairway must eliminate the sins mentioned above by fully and inclusively praising all evidence, both individually and in their unity. Thereafter, it must come to clear conclusions about the crucial facts that emerge from the provative material and make a fair and legal decision”, says Apel's decision.

Apel's decision is said to remain in custody until the upcoming decision by the Special Department, which will consider whether this measure will continue or not.

According to the indictment filed by the Special Prosecution on November 2nd, 2022, there is reportedly suspicion that Assisq, in co-ordination with other members of the Serbian Police and paramilitary groups, in the January-June 1999 months, has participated in the expulsion and deportation of citizens from Pristina and the suburbs. The Act charges Arsic along with the other group have begun to plunder homes, as well as later with the aim of damaging Albanian property has set him on fire.

The Act makes Arsinqi responsible for the mistreatment of Albanian civilians, injuries, and murder.

Assreq is accused of having participated in the execution of now late B.S., so that on April 20, 1999, in the village of Bovovac of the Pristina municipality, at the site called <x0...

With this, Assreq is accused of committing criminal acts “war crimes against the civilian population” by Article 142 concerning Article 22 of RSFJ Criminal Law.