Prizren murder, 1 month detention of grave murder suspect

Unauthorized possession of weapons by Article 366 para. 1st CKP. The court after hearing the parties in the procedure and after analyzing the paperwork found that the Constitutional Prosecutor's request for the detention assignment is based, and the procedure judge has estimated that there are legal reasons for the appointment of this measure, because from the evidence collected to this stage, comes a given suspicion:

On August 10, 2025, around 20:30 minutes, in Prizren, in the neighborhood “Tususus”, on “street. Lapidari”, the defendant after a subtle preconception and exploiting the victim's confidence, deliberately deprives the deceased H.S., in a way that initially provokes their being in a fight and after a brief statement the defendant suddenly and suddenly pulls out the patent knife, black and hits the chest section of H.S., who did not expect to be hit with the fact that they were friends, then the defendant escapes in the direction of the village, while the sense is conveyed to the emergency hospital center of Mustafa4>, to the hospital, to Prizren, where the worst wounds were sent to Pristina. Also on date, time and the same place own the cold, unlicensed weapon, in public place where large numbers of people were assembled, using it for purposes

Kill the patented, black knife with which the deceased H.S. has been killed, all contrary to the applicable law on possession of cold weapons.

Taking into account the material evidence collected to this stage, which argues the suspicion given that the defendant committed criminal acts, the Court estimates that legal conditions for the detention assignment have been met, because the defendant after the time he allegedly committed criminal work was on the run, and his presence before justice institutions has been secured after the search and arrest of the Kosovo Police, from these reasons there is danger that with the release or alternative measure, the same could be on the run with the intention of avoiding criminal responsibility and being unable to reach institutions, preventing the development of the procedure without stumbling. Also this criminal case is in the initial phase of the investigation, and witnesses of the case and the defendant will be questioned before the State Attorney, so with the defendant's release there is the danger of witness influence, or hiding evidence and other material evidence, what is the Court's conclusion that the detention assignment is reasonable. The detention charge at this stage is necessary by weighing the heavy burden of criminal activity, the consequences it has caused, the circumstances and manner in which criminal acts have been allegedly committed, where the defendant after a preliminary dispute, slylyly and deliberately exploiting the victim's trust, deliberately deprives him of life, after a brief and surprise plea brings out the knife and strikes the victim in the chest.

From tops, the Court has concluded that appointing detention at this stage is the most opportune measure, with the aim of ensuring the defendant's presence in the preliminary procedure and before the institutions of justice, the unhindered and orderly success of the investigative phase.