Appeal confirms foundation decision, leaves 8 suspects in Prizren vote theft

According to the February 3rd 2026 ruling, eight suspects' defence complaints have been denied, the Foundation Actation has already been confirmed, reports “Justice Vow “.

 

 

Against the Constitutional Act, the complaint was filed by I.P. defender Refki Piraj, due to essential violations of criminal procedure provisions, proposing that his defenders be appointed home arrest.

On the other hand, defendant B.J.'s defender, lawyer Hasan Biray, has filed complaints because of the wrong and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation and substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions, demanding that the case be restored to restoration.

E.G.'s lawyer, Naim Chahanaj, has filed complaints because of substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions because of the misconception of the actual situation upon which the Foundation Act has been issued. It has proposed that a softer measure of his defense be established or that the occasion be returned to restoration.

G.S. defender lawyer Arben Ramadani has filed complaints with the proposal that his defenders cease custody, and the move of presentation at the police station is set.

 

 

The L.K. defender, lawyer Fatmir Jeliqi, has filed complaints due to violations of the Penal Procedure Code provisions, proposing that his defenders be appointed home arrest.

A.K. defender, lawyer Klodian Krasniqi has filed complaints because of non-resistance of legal clause by Article 184 The KPPC's, proposing that its defenders be appointed house arrest or the provision of a ban on approaching the country or certain persons.

 

 

Even the defense of the A.H., attorney Anton Cuperyan has filed complaints about all the grounds for complaint, proposing that A.H., house arrest be pronounced amo measures of banning the country or certain persons.

Also, the complaint had filed B.B. defender, lawyer Fatbarde Elezkurtaj, due to breach of KPPK's provisions and the error and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation. She had demanded that her defense be denied custody and a softer measure be appointed.

 

 

However, the Preparation Appeals Prosecutor has proposed that the defense complaints be refused as groundless and the act of the Foundation confirmed.

According to Apel, IP's defender, lawyer Refki Piraj, has said the detention measure in relation to the criminal offense is extremely serious, so he has demanded replacement by another measure, saying the investigation could also be carried out with the measure of house arrest. Even the B.J. defender, lawyer Hasan Biray, has demanded that his defenders be assigned alternative measures.

 

 

E.G. defender, lawyer N.C., the ruling has reportedly claimed in complaint that the conviction based cannot rely solely on assumptions and interpretations, but be concrete, individualised and based on solid material evidence.

Furthermore, it is said that G.S.'s protector, lawyer Arben Ramadani, has claimed in complaint that his client has not had the leader's position but only the member's position. And L.K.'s defender, lawyer Fatmir Jeliqi with complaints, has also demanded that his defence measures be changed and a softer measure is appointed, since he has estimated that the detention measure is extremely rigorous.

And A.K. defender, lawyer Klodian Krasniqi, has said that his protector is young, is the first time he has been suspected of criminal acts, thus proposing the appointment of an alternative measure. And A.H. defender, lawyer Anton Cuperyan, has stressed in complaint that claims on which the decision on the detention assignment is based can only be addressed during the pronunciation of the sentence. He has said that the court has not taken his client's age and has no criminal precedent.

Meanwhile, the B.B. defender, lawyer Fatbarda Elezkurtaj, has claimed in complaint that conditions have not been met for the detention assignment of its defenders.

 

 

Apel's findings:

According to the Court of Appeals, defence claims are unfounded. It says that the Foundation has directly justified the suspicion that the defendants committed the criminal acts they are suspected of, and that it is necessary to assign detention to them.

 

 

The appeal points out that the suspicion stems from evidence that is attached to the subject paperwork that has been collected until this phase of the procedure.

The decision reportedly states that the suspect B.B., in the police, has stated he has been the leader of the stalemate at the Prizren Accounting Centre, by LVV, he has said he has not been separated from the commission's duties and responsibilities by the chairman. He added that other people have placed data on candidates of political subjects, though they were not right, but have allowed them.

Furthermore, the suspect A.H. reportedly stated in the police that he was the leader of a PDK counting table, where his task was to introduce data of other political subjects. He said he didn't know about Article 21 of the election rule.

And, A.K., it's said, the police declared he was the representative. The PDK, committed as chairman of the KKN commission in Prizren. He said that during the count the system had problems 5-6 times a day, as the system has sometimes been restarted and turned to zero point.

 

 

Meanwhile, G.S., the police reportedly claimed to have been a member of the Commission by the PDK, counting 12 boxes, but with the insistence of colleagues, has received another 2. He said he wasn't trained. Even the defendant L.K. has said in the police he has been the leader of the AAK polling centre. He has said there was a loud noise during the count, and as leader, he has shared duties with commissioners.

Always under the verdict, defendant B.J., has stated in the police that he was the leader of one of the LDK's counting tables and that he respected Article 21 for election. E.G., however, has stated in the police that he was the chairman of the Commission from LDK, has divided the roles, but in case of the pauses there have been times when they changed their roles. He has cited difficulties in counting votes, due to nomination.

 

 

While, the I.P., it is said to have declared in the police who was a member of the commission by the PDK. This too has cited the lack of training and non-recognition for Article 21 of the election regulation.

The appeal highlights the Foundation directly when it appointed detention of suspects because the investigations are in the initial phase, the defendants at the prosecution will be heard, other defendants and witnesses will be heard.

 

According to Apelit, if left on freedom, the defendants are likely to influence the co-independent, so this Court estimates that the legal condition for the appointment of the detention measure has been met and that the appointment of this measure is necessary in order to ensure the presence of defendants in criminal procedure and with the aim of normal development of criminal procedure.

Appeal estimates that the first scale acted directly in which it assigned the detention to eight defendants, this is taking into account the burden of criminal acts, the serious nature, the social risk of criminal activity, the damage to the image of free and democratic elections, the high degree of intent to commit criminal acts, co-operation with each other, and the fact that some candidates have been injured by being voted out, and some have increased.

 

 

The second rate has estimated that other measures are insufficient for ensuring the presence of defendants in the procedure, for the normal course of criminal procedure and in preventing the conduct of another criminal act.

Otherwise, for nine other suspects for vote manipulation, D.S., J.H., S.B., A.L., Q.C., A.V., F.L., M.H., and G.P., the Court of Appeals has cancelled the Constitutional Court's decision in Prizren, bringing the issue of detention against them back to a restore.

The Foundation Court in Prizren, the Department of Internal Crimes, after holding four hearings, on January 24th 2026, had scheduled the detention measure against 23 suspects for vote manipulation.

Of 109 detainees for voting manipulation in the December 28th elections, the prosecution had demanded the detention measure for 23 of them, for which the Foundation approved this request.

The Constitutional Court had announced that the move was placed under suspicion of committing criminal acts against voting rights, canoty, bribery and bribery.

According to the announcement, 21 defendants suspected of “Forging the results of the” vote.

 

 

The pre-procedure court has ruled as follows: Twenty-one. 2 regarding Article 31 of the KP”, it said in the statement.

And, A.V., suspected of “Falsification of the results of the vote” and “Bribe taking.

 

 

“Following a (1) defendant, A.V., has been assigned to the detention measure, in length of (1) a month, which can last until 23,02.2026 because of the suspicion of having committed criminal acts, forging the results of the vote by Article 216 par. 2 of the KP, and taking the bribe, from Article 422 paragraph 1 of the KP”, was said in the Foundation's announcement.

Furthermore, it was said that the G.P., suspected of “censing” and “bribery”.

“Follow a (1) G.P. defendant (in the quality of the observer) has been assigned the detention measure, in length of (1) a month, which can last until 23.2026 because of the suspicion of having committed criminal acts, Article 181 paragraph 3 concerning paragraph 1 to the KP, and the bribery of Article 422 paragraph 1 KP<1>, the Court reported.