Court releases three people caught with 1m euros in Merdara

The Constitutional Court in Pristina has rejected the special prosecution's request for detention of the three suspects, who were seized 1m euros in Merdara.

The Court says that the prosecution has managed to prove and there is evidence that defendants E.A., A.K. and A.L., have committed the criminal work they suspect, and that no evidence has been mentioned, non-perceivedo.

In response to the Express Journal, it also says that the request for the detention assignment has not been attributed to even the minimum evidence for this phase of procedure, such as vehicle control procession and no confirmation of the seizure.

So, in this situation and in the absence of prov material, the court is obliged to apply Article 163 par.3 of the KPRK and release defendants E.A., A.K. and A. It says among others in notice.

Notification:

The Constitutional Court in Pristina, the Special Department, has rejected the Special Prosecutor's request of the Republic of Kosovo for the appointment of the detention measure to indictees E.A., A.K. and A.L., citizens of Albania, suspected of the criminal work of money laundering.

The Pre-Procedure Procedure Judge through the Act has rejected the Special Prosecutor's request of the Republic of Kosovo, while the defendants are immediately released from the moment of surrender of this act.

The court found that in this case the fundamental condition of Article 184 paragraph 1 points 1.1 of the KPPRK was not met, respectively, that the prosecution failed to establish that there is no doubt based that the E.A. defendants, A.K. and A.L., have committed the criminal work they are suspected of, as according to the Court in the prosecution's request no preeminence, no superficial evidence in which the prosecution supports its claim on the basis of suspicion.

According to the court ruling, the request for the detention assignment has not even been attached to the minimum evidence for this phase of procedure, such as the vehicle control procession, nor the confirmation of the seizure, which are necessary evidence for the establishment of the base for the detention assignment.

So, facing this situation and lack of provative material, the court is obliged to apply Article 163 par.3 of the KPRK and release defendants E.A., A.K. and A.L.