Appeal turns the case against Glauk Konjufca into retrial for throwing tear gas into the Assembly

The Constitutional Court in Pristina on February 26th 2024 has declared a free trial against Konjufca, arguing that it has not proved to have carried out the work that was placed on the burden “the use of a weapon or dangerous tool”. However, for criminal work “The participation of the official person in performing the official task” for which the prescription was issued, reports “Justice Vow “, broadcast Periscope.

Towards the Foundation's decision, the complaint has been filed by the Pristina Constitutional Prosecutor's Prosecutor for the Liberation Part and Its Cause
The wrong and incomplete proof of the actual situation, with the proposal that the Court of Appeals amend the complaining act and convict the accused of criminal acts “using the weapon or dangerous tool” and pronounce sentence in proportion to the weight of the criminal act or bias be annulled and the case returns to retrial.

The response in the prosecutor's complaint has been exercised by the defender of the accused Konjufca, lawyer Arbnor Zeqiri, with proposals that the prosecutor's complaint be rejected as unbashed, while the complaining act will be confirmed.

However, the paralytic Appeals prosecutor has proposed that the prosecutor's complaint be approved as based, the complaining act be changed
and let the accused plead guilty, or the case return to retrial.

“With the approval of the Pristina Constitutional Prosecutor's complaint with Pristina, and according to official duty, the Constitutional Court Act in Pristina, P.N.464/17, dated 26.02.24, due to the criminal work the use of weapons or dangerous means, by Article 375 par.1 of KPRK, is cancelled and the sentence is returned to the same court for retrial and decision”, the Apel decision taken on February 27th 2025.

According to the Appeals College, the prosecutor's complaint is based and estimates that the complaining act is also involved in essential violations of the criminal procedure's provisions, which are related to the wrong and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation and violation of the Penal Law, these violations of the absolute character which condition the annulment of this act.

Likewise, Apel estimates that the complaint act contains essential violations of the penal procedure provisions related to both the complaining basis - the wrong and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation, because according to the subject's paperwork, it turns out that, in concrete case, the first degree court has not correctly and fully assessed the administered evidence.

The trial of the first degree in the plea of the complaint has not ruled that the evidence forgives trust or that it does not forgive trust and which administered evidence it considers confirmed which unproved, has not rightly compared these trials to each other and that the reasoning given in this direction by the first court is unfair and incomplete, in the decision said.

According to Apel, the Foundation on the Reason of Apology Counts Adminisced Evidence but Does Not Confirm Why
He freed the accused from the crime that he was charged with by accusation.

<x) The lack of evidence for the sequistation also does not prove the provative value and the prosecution's reasoning and claims that the high check-up evidence has been seized in the way and in the proprietary aspect that would prove that the accused has culinary connections and criminal responsibility for the actual situation, as it is in the indictment. The lack of evidence for confirmation also coincides with the inability of administered evidence and subject paperwork to argue what has been seized in connection with criminal responsibility and incriminating acts of the accused”, the decision said.

According to Appeal, this conclusion of the Foundation is unfair and incomplete because in this criminal case we have other material evidence, and so do the accused's own claim in his statement to the Prosecutor, where he has stated, among other things.
That he used tear gas that day, but he said tear gas doesn't consider it a weapon.

The appeal points out that in this case, in addition to the prosecution's statement, we have witnesses' statements, other material evidence, and especially the process of gathering the Headship of the Assembly, held on August 10, 2016, where, among other things, it is claimed that “lasted the development of discussions, the chairman of LVV's GP, Mr. Glauk Konjufca threw tear gas into C-301 Hall. Because of the inability to continue, the chairman interrupted the Assembly of the Parliament's Headship”.

Of all the tops, the first degree court has failed to properly and specifically verify the actual state of affairs and the most unfair and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation in the concrete case has also been violated in favour of the accused. All these violations according to the evaluation of the college of this court are of absolute character, which conditionly conditioning the annulment of this act”, the decision says.

In the retrial, the foundation must once again manage all evidence proposed by the prosecutor in the indictment and those which he proposes to the defendant's defence and the accused in the trial.

The appeal points out that the evidence must be administered one by one, and in relation to the other, to be deemed meritably and then made a legitimate and just decision.

Thus, the Court of Appeals estimates that the court's judicial complaint is unstable and as such has been annulled and retriald.

“In the retrial, the first degree court must act in accordance with the above remarks to eliminate all outstanding violations and depending on the result of the test assessment of legitimate and informed conclusions and then make a corresponding decision”, the decision says.

As for the rejection part pertaining to the criminal act “Pegim of the official person in performing official duties”, since the Constitutional Prosecutor's Prosecutor has not complained in that direction, the complaint case remains unchanged.

The “Justice Vow” has contacted Konjufca lawyer Arbnoora Zeqiri, who said they have yet to accept the verdict.

“As long as I have not accepted the decision, I cannot give a comment”, Zeqiri said.

Otherwise, at the 25 October 2023 session, Judge Edita Canta said Konjufca was prescribed to “Pingim the hostage of the official person during the performance of official duties”.

The Constitutional Prosecutor in Pristina, on February 3rd 2017, has filed charges against Glauk Konjufca, which he charges with two criminal acts.

According to the indictment, Konjufca is charged with having a meeting in the Republic of Kosovo Assembly Hall, attended by Parliament Speaker Kadri Veselina, deputies Adem Grabovci, Ismet Beqiri, Sabri Hamiti, Pal Lekaj, Valdete Bajrami and Slobodan Petrovic, the same in the province's quality, in opposition to the law has used weapons, so that during this meeting, he has thrown tear gas into the hall.

The Actakuza says that as a result, the participants' position has been hampered by smoke that has caused tear gas, and the same have been forced to abandon the hall, with what defendant Konjufca has come down against Article 9.1 of the No.04/12 law enforcement force in the Republic of Kosovo, where weapons use is banned.

With this, Konjufca is accused of committing criminal work “the use of weapons or dangerous tool” by Article 375, paragraph 1 of the Penal Code, which has been sentenced to jail for one to eight years.

While, according to the second device of this indictment, by date, at the time and place described as in the first device of this charge, defendant Konjufca during the use of tear gas has prevented official persons like Parliament Speaker Kadri Veseli, MPs Adam Grabovci, Ismet Beqiri, Sabri Hamiti, Pal Lekaj, Valdet Bajrami and Slobodan Petrov in performing official duties, cerras of all official persons are obliged to interrupt and leave the hall.

For this, Konjufca was accused of committing criminal work “Pinginging the official person during the performance of official duties” defined by Article 409, paragraph 1 of the Penal Code, which is sentenced to jail terms of three months to three years.