The Supreme sets free the man who was convicted of brutal violence to the death of his spouse

After 7 years of being in prison, Ilir Hadziaj, from the municipality of Suhareka, has already been acquitted of beating until the death of his wife Hatije Dina.

The Supreme Court has acquitted the same charges of serious bodily injury under the argument that the Constitutional and Appeal's decision to serve a 15-year prison sentence does not lie beyond the established suspicion.

The Supreme Court concludes that first and second-degree courts have made selective, fragmentary and isolated interpretations of evidence, without examining them in interconnection to each other, nor in their entirety, to draw precise, clear and sustainable conclusions about meeting the “standard beyond reasonable suspicion” of the defendant's guiltyness. In the concrete case, the facts and evidence administered in the procedural sense do not support this standard, so that the court will be convinced of the defendant's guilt on such a scale that any reasonable suspicion be disfellowshipped for the defendant in connection with the commission of criminal acts for which he was convicted and convicted. Consequently, according to Article 363's provision of Article 363 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 1.3 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KPP), he was acquitted of serious bodily injury by Article 186 paragraph 5 concerning paragraph 1 of the Republic of Kosovo Penal Code (KPRK). ”

Hadhajaj was tried twice by the Constitutional Court in Prizren, which in both cases convicted him of serving a 15-year sentence on charges that in June 2019, after the disagreements he had experienced, he had hit him several times for the late asphalt, causing him fatal wounds.

The first time Apel broke the Foundation's decision, and turned the case into retrial, to prove the sentence the second time.

The Supreme Court's 16 - page ruling states that both steps of the court have not addressed the point of the case.

According to the court's assessment, both courts -- first court and appeals court -- have not addressed the core of the case, facts and conflicting evidence, but have sufficed to rely solely on a version of the incident, the prosecutor's, as described in the device. The mention of evidence of objective nature, such as finding blood tracks at the scene and the fact that the parties in the past have had good reports, constitute non-controversial facts. The court notes that courts have not done a critical analysis of communications expert Ejup Qehaja, and of linking this test with other evidence. Rather, they have appreciated it as fragmented and separate from other evidence, especially from evidence contrary to its version and findings. The courts have not addressed the fundamental contradictions that exist between the two expertise, which in essence are incompatible with each other for the version of the event and which are of crucial importance for the epilogue of the case”.

For the ongoing violence that she felt over the years, the hearings held during the trial had witnessed the victim's son and her brothers, who have claimed that the victim Hattije Dina has experienced continued violence by her husband over the years. / RTV Dukagini