Mustafa brings to Constitution the Supreme decision, which left the 15-year prison sentence in force

Focusing on the chronology of the case, Salih Mustafa, on the first scale on December 16, 2022, was convicted of war crimes and sentenced to 26 years in prison.

After he appealed the verdict, on December 14, 2023, the indictment against him confirmed his guilt, but reduced the sentence to 22 years in prison.

But on July 29, 2024, the Supreme Court annulled the act of Appeal on the penalty and reversed the case in reviewing a new sentence on Mustafa, reports A pledge of justice, Transmitt Periscope.

As a result, for the second time, Appeals applied the standard that the Supreme Court had set for the sentence and reduced the sentence on Mustafa to 15 years in prison.

On December 9th 2024, Mustafa had submitted to the Supreme request for the protection of legitimacy again, but on February 25, 2025, this court had handed down Apel's decision.

So Mustafa's request in the Constitutional Court has to do with the Supreme Court's final decision.

In his complaint handed down on April 24th 2025, Mustafa says that constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 33 (3) of the Constitution of Kosovo, which stipulates that the penalty rate must be proportional to criminal work.

Mustafa claims that Apeli when he declared the new sentence has violated this provision, which aims to protect the accused and that the Supreme subsequently did not correct this mistake but rejected the defence rejection.

According to him, the Supreme has not determined any standards of punishment, nor can a sentence be considered unproportional.

Mustafa's defence says the Constitution should interpret this article, its use and also give clear instructions regarding its interpretation, as there is no such thing so far.

According to the defence, prognition concerns the degree of condemnation, rather than condemnation in general.

They say that there are a number of traditional factors in the concept of general prevention that should be taken into account when the abstract condemnation is considered by a judicial authority. According to them, the traditional factor should be the severity of crime, the guilt of perpetrators, extenuating and rotating circumstances regarding the perpetrators, intimidation and rehabilitation.

However, proportionality does not concern the above factors and should be determined at the moment when judges consider a particular sentence for a certain crime.

Defence says Apel has not applied the issue of proportionality, and the Supreme has rejected the argument of protection related to this part.

The defence requires that judicial authorities, when deciding on a sentence, should think that this sentence should not pass a certain “standard” based on the time the crime was committed. This standard of proportion is essential to ensure that the punishment is proportional to the crime committed.

“The standard that will eventually be applied should be based on the time period in which crime was committed and on the practice of the sentence that existed in that period of”, Mustafa's complaint said.

The defence says that DPS as an authority that falls under the Constitution of Kosovo must admit that in 1999 Kosovo was still part of Yugoslavia and therefore must be recognised by the acts of murder sentences at the time.

To further avoid the arbitration of a sentence, an additional factor must be considered. This factor is what is considered a proportional punishment for that crime, as it has been committed, at that time period”, says the request.

Under defence, the 15-year sentence on Mustafa is inadequate and that the Appeal's argument for their proportion was insufficient.

They say that the Supreme One should have decided on this matter by giving clear legal direction on this part.

In the end, defence argues that any sentence ruling should be based on a legal standard and that this standard has been lacking in both decisions.

“The protection suggests that Mustafa's (continual punishment) rate is not justified, since it does not comply with the principle of proportionism according to the understanding of Article 33 (3) of the Constitution”, it says in demand.

Calling the 15-year prison sentence for Mustafa as arbitrator and unstable, the defence demanded from the Constitution to grant the right to the motion and retrial the case in the respective panel.

Otherwise, Mustafa had filed yet another complaint in the Constitution for violating his fundamental and constitutional rights during his trial at the Foundation and Appeals about what decision in this case was made on April 17th 2025.

According to the ruling, the Constitution has not listed actual or legal errors in the reasoning of lower courts, and therefore Mustaf's complaint was declared unacceptable.

The act against Mustafa in the first instance was announced on December 16th 2022, with which Mustafa has been sentenced to 26 years in prison.

While on April 6, 2023, Salih Mustafa was ordered to pay 207 thousand euros for the damage to the victims. Later, he had submitted 51 points to the Court of Appeals' panel against the punitive decision of the Special Foundation to him.

The Special Appeal, on December 14, 2023, has pronounced a case against Salih Mustaf, with whom he sentenced him to a unique sentence of 22 years in prison for war crimes.

According to DPS, Salih Mustafa had applied for protection of legitimacy in the Supreme, and the decision on this requirement was taken on 29 July 2024.

In his request for protection of legitimacy, Mr. Mustafa raised five points, which related to the translation of the Appeals Act into Albanian, his guilty plea for murder as a war crime, as well as the measure of sentence”, said at the DSF report.

The request for protection of legitimacy, Mustafa, had handed over on March 13th 2024 with whom he had demanded the Supreme Court of TSK to modify first and second degree judgments, canceling the sentences for arbitrary ban, torture and murder, thus declaring him innocent or completely canceling his convictions and turning the case into a retrial.

Mustafa has put forward five points, through which he has rejected Appeal's decision, with which he was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Mustafa's request had been accepted in part, so the Supreme One had restored the case to Apel to establish a new sentence on the accused.

In reasoning with the court, the head of the Appeals panel, Michele Picard, said that the first degree court had made an outstanding mistake in condemning Salih Mustaf. She also added that a sentence rated for 22 years in prison, even counting the past time in custody, reflects the overall criminal activity of Mustafa.

And on September 10, 2024, The Hague's Court of Appeals has decided to change the sentence from 22 to 15 years in prison for Salih Mustaf after the Supreme returned the case to that degree. Again, Cal complained to the Supremee about Apel's second decision, but the third scale gave him the sentence.

The chronology of the case with Salih Mustafa, you can read the CENTU. Otherwise, the indictment against Mustafa was confirmed on June 12, 2020. /Periscope/