The violations that Appeals found in the Foundation's decision on detention measures in the 27-year-old case in Lipjan

The Court of Appeals has cancelled the Constitutional Court's decision in Pristina-The Branch in Lipjan, which on July 9th 2025 has assigned the detention measure to Sergeant Ibrahim Nela and police officials: Albian Retkocer, Artion Kondzhel, Liridon Candor and Andrew Beqiri, under suspicion of careless murder of citizen Agon Zejnullahu in Lipjan.

With the approval of alleged defenders' complaints, Appeals turned the matter into restoration, reports the “Justice Vow “.

According to Apel's decision, a complaint against the Foundation's decision, which had imposed detention, has constituted the protection of five suspected policemen.

The appeal estimates that the hearing has been held in violation of legal provisions.

According to Apel, the state prosecutor has not relaxed the request for detention and that there is no agreement there is that the parties have given up on elaborisation of the request for detention.

The second scale stresses that the Foundation's decision does not contain analysis and assessment of relevant evidence to confirm the well-based suspicion that suspects have committed criminal work on what they are suspected.

Always according to Apel's decision, the first instance itself has listed evidence and that the same ones have not been assessed or analyzed to see whether there is a doubt based on the detention measure, as the existence of suspicion based on the decision is the condition for the detention assignment.

Also, this ruling says that in the absence of any separate evidence, the individualisation of each suspect's actions is lacking to determine the intensity of the suspect's actions.

It says that if individual action was determined by the judge of the preliminary procedure for each suspect, security measures in proportion to the actions of each suspect could be set.

Thus, according to Apel, the first degree has failed to test the suspicion based on this slide in formal and non-instantial assessment of the circumstances for the detention assignment.

Apel has clarified that the first degree has failed to reason on the danger of repeating criminal acts.

According to this Court, it has been conditional on the decision to return to the retrial because the content was carried into the Law for Information Management System and that it did not possess physical material paperwork, especially to assess CDs and videos.

Thus, in restoration, Appeals stresses that the first degree should assess the standard of suspicion based, become individualisation of each suspect's actions, specify concrete circumstances that pose the risk of repeating criminal acts, and estimate CDs.

The “Justice Vow” had reported exclusively on the Court's decision to appoint the detention measure, the Prosecutor's File and the statement of suspects to the Prosecutor./Periscopi/