Appeal narrows the sentence from 20 to 17 years in prison for the Glamnik murder in Podujevo

The Court of Appeals has ruled, with which it has eased the sentence from 20 to 17 years in prison of accused Orges Zhugolli for the murder in Gllmanic, Podujevo, due to a conflict in communications.

According to the indictment, Orges Zhugolli was charged with being charged on September 12, 2023, in Glamnik, Podujevo, having now deprived of life on the deceased A. DAR due to a conflict they had had had in communications, the Justice Trust“reports, Periscope follows.

The Constitutional Court in Pristina, on 4 June 2025, had sentenced the accused Jougolli to 20 years in prison.

Against the Constitutional Act, the complaint was filed by the Constitutional Prosecutor in Pristina, due to essential violations by Article 369 par.10, wrong and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation and the decision on condemnation. He proposed that the accused be found guilty of the deed he has been released and that the highest prison sentence be pronounced against him.

On the other hand, defendant Jougolli, lawyer Naim Rudari, has filed complaints on essential violations of criminal procedure provisions, violation of the Criminal Law, error and incomplete proof of the actual situation, and a decision on criminal sanctions. He proposed to Apel that the Constitutional Act be annulled and returned to restoration, giving concrete instructions on what should be done in the
Retrial phase.

However, the prosecutor of the Paramount Appeal has proposed to Appeals to be approved as a basis for the prosecution's complaint, while the defense complaint is rejected as unfounded.

The Appeals Judges' college session, where complaints from the parties had been issued, was held on October 2nd 2025.

According to Appeal, the Constitutional Act is not included in essential violations of criminal procedure provisions for the fact that that decision contains reasons regarding the criminal acts that Jougolli has been charged with, and that this reasoning is clear, understandable, and not against himself or the reasoning.

Likewise, Apel maintains that in the reasoning of the complaint act, all the reasons for each point of judgment are clearly and fully presented.

The evidence, according to Appeals, has been properly assessed and that the defence claim that the bias rests on unacceptable evidence does not lie in the fact that witness statements are administered in the trial along with material evidence.

From evidence administered in the judicial examination, according to Apel, concretely from video-incistisation, the fact that the accused had dangerous tools with him, while now the deceased had no knife or dangerous means with him, and that the deceased had not taken active action towards the accused before the crackdown.

While the claim that the accused's action has preceded harassment on the part of now the late and the witnesses, in recognition of the circumstances, results in unequivocal and uncontested.

The next claim to complete the autopsy, Apel estimates that it is unfounded since the autopsy report has found that the victim's death has resulted from a hemorrhagic shock caused by the sharp wound in the chest, where the death of the deceased in the doctor's opinion is murderous.

The defender's “claims that the first degree court has violated criminal law, because there are circumstances that exclude the criminal responsibility, are groundless claims, because from the administered evidence it has proved that the accused committed the criminal act for which he was convicted, that the same criminal act has been prosecuted responsible, as well as there are no circumstances which exclude the prosecution or criminal responsibility of the accused in this direction”, in the decision.

Regarding the extent of the sentence, Apel said, it should be softened with the reasoning that, among other things, the case has taken place without planning but has occurred because of the conflict in communications, that victims with the accused were not known before, and that there is reconciliation between the family of the deceased and the accused not to pursue revenge.

At the May 27th 2025 session, Zhugoll was found guilty of the criminal act of “homicide”, while cleared of charges for “Abnegation”, because he has not proved to have committed criminal work. Later, on June 4th 2025, the Constitutional Court in Pristina declared the case against Orges Jougol, condemning him to 20 years in prison.

Meanwhile, according to the Constitutional Prosecutor's Act in Pristina, on September 12th 2023 near the market “Melis”, located in the village of Glamnik of Podujevo, defendant Orges Zhugolli had now deprived the deceased A.Z. of life due to a conflict they had in communications.