Appeal confirms the sentence to “Cobra” and three others accused of killing at “Cobra City”, eases the sentence for the fifth

The founder on October 9th 2025 had Hoxhaj sentenced him to a unique sentence of 24 years in prison, Roland Susur was sentenced to a unique sentence of 7 years in prison, Yasmir Bandallaj was sentenced to a unique two-year sentence, Arben Vezaj and Burim Mazre was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment.

In this case, Dibran Hoxhaj, known as “Coba” and four accused Roland Susuri, Arben Vezaj, Burim Mazrek and Jesmir Bandalli, are charged with the V.C. assassination case, on January 3, 2023 at the “Cbra City” locale in Prizren, reports <x4Betim for Justice<5>. The Court of Appeals with the decision of May 26th, 2026, has changed the Constitutional Act only as far as the verdict on the penalty for criminal work “Manipulation with evidence” against the accused Susur, who was sentenced to 3 years in prison for his crime. In contrast, the punishment for two other works was confirmed (“Taking a beating” and “Non-license content”). So Susur was sentenced to a unique sentence of 5 years in prison.

Kosovo's “Court of Appeals, with the act of APS.n. 7,2026 of the date 30.03.2026, with the partial approval of the defender's complaint against the R.S., attorney R.S., has changed the Constitutional Court's conviction in Pristina, SP.23.2024 on the 1411.2025 date, solely with the verdict on the criminal act of manipulation by 389 CPR, so that the criminal sentence is the same as being executed in prison terms of 3 years, while the three criminal acts accused. S, has been pronounced a unique prison sentence of 5 (five) years”, the announcement says. Meanwhile, this Court confirmed the Constitutional Act on Hoxha, Vezaj, Mazrek and Bandall.

“While, the Court of Appeals has refused complaints of indictees D.H., lawyers F.L. and M.K. as groundless; J.B., lawyer J.R.; A.V., lawyer B. J.; and B.M., lawyer G. The J., as well as the rest of the defendant's complaint to the R.S., lawyer R.S., as well as the complaint of the authorised representative of the damaged B.C. party, E.K. lawyer, in relation to the accused charged in determining the trial, has confirmed the Court Act in Pristina, SP.23/2024 of the 14112025. Similarly, the Court of Appeals has falsely filed a complaint with the authorised representative of the damaged B.C. party, E.K., in report to the accused B. M” says on notice. Meanwhile, according to Apel, with the approval of the authorised representative's complaint to the damaged R.T. side, and according to official duty, has cancelled the first-degree arrangement of January 23rd, 2026, regarding the refusal to call for the return of the classified item and the case has turned the first-degree court into restoration.

The appeal has found that the complaint act is not included in the essential violation of criminal procedure provisions by Article 384, paragraph 1 of the Penal Procedure Code, which this court cares about under official office, because the judicial examination has been conducted legally and the trial contains clear and complete reasons regarding the crucial facts. “As far as the complaint claims of the accused's defenders for substantial violation of criminal procedure provisions from Article 384 paragraph 2 subparagraphs 2.2, 2.5 and 2.7 related to KPP's Article 369, as well as violations of KPP's Article 53, the Court of Appeals has estimated that the same are groundless. This is about the fact that the bias device is clear, concrete and in full compliance with its reasoning, while the first degree court has given sufficient reasons about all the crucial facts of this criminal-juridical case, making the assessment of evidence in accordance with Article 361 paragraph 1 of the KPP and providing clear reasons regarding the country, time and circumstances of carrying out criminal acts by the accused”, Appeli estimates.

On the other hand, in terms of complaints about the wrong and incomplete proof of the fact of the situation, Appeals finds that the court of the first instance in this criminal case has correctly and completely confirmed that with evidence administered during the trial it has proved that the accused by actions described for each and other in the corresponding points of the prosecution's bias have committed the criminal acts for which they have been convicted, each according to the role, participation and actions taken over this criminal case. Hence, complaints of wrong and incomplete proof of the actual state, Apel has deemed them baseless. According to Appeal, the number of shots fired by the accused Hoxha and the use of a firearm clearly points to the eventual desire for life deprivation and endangerment of other people.

“As far as claims of violation of criminal law are concerned, the Court of Appeals has estimated that the first-instance court, on the basis of the verifiable situation correctly and completely, has rightly applied criminal law in proportion to all criminal acts for which the accused have been convicted. Also, the defense claims of the defendant D.H. Regarding the lack of elements in the criminal offense, serious murder has been deemed groundless, as the use of firearms, the number of shootings, and their direction clearly entailed the eventual desire for life deprivation and the endangerment of other persons”, it is further said. As for the conviction ruling, the second instance has estimated that the first-degree court, with the case of measuring the sentence, has directly assessed the extenuating and embarrassing circumstances for each charged in compliance with KPRK's Article 73.

“In this direction, the Court of Appeals has estimated that the sentences pronounced against indictees D.H., J.B., A.V. and B.M. They are fair and legitimate, in line with the intensity of the social risk of criminal acts committed and the degree of criminal responsibility of each accused, are in the function of the general and individual province, and that with these sentences the purpose of prior punishment will be achieved under KPR's 38th provision, Apely reports. However, for the accused Susur, the Court of Appeals has estimated that sufficient reason has been given to pronounce the sentence almost to the legal maximum for criminal work “Manipulation with evidence”, so the bias has been changed only in this part.

While, the claims by other defendants' defenders for softer sentences, as well as the claims of authorised representative of the damaged side for higher sentences, have been deemed groundless. “as far as the alleged representative's complaint of the damaged B.C. party, lawyer E.K., the Court of Appeals has thrown the same claim down in part as unfair in reporting with the accused B.M., because the damaged side has no right to complaint over the criminal sanctions for criminal manipulation by Article 389 paragraph 1 of KPRC<x> is further said.

However, the act of decision regarding the selection of the vehicle has been cancelled and turned the case into retrial. “While, in terms of a complaint by the authorised representative of the damaged R.T. party, the F.M. lawyer, against the decision to refuse the request for the return of the seized vehicle, the Appeals Court has estimated that the complaining act contains no sufficient reason regarding the need to proceed with vehicle selection and no specific procedure yet to be undertaken with. In addition, the first-degree court has failed to assess the judicial effect of the commandments of the Republic of Albania's judicial authorities on vehicle sequencing. For this reason, the Court of Appeals has cancelled the complaint, and the case has been turned into a court case that the first instance in re-installing”, Apel reports.

The Special Prosecutor of the Republic of Kosovo (PSRK), on February 20, 2024, has filed an act against Debra Hoxhaj, known as “Cobra” and Roland Susur, Arben Veszaj, Burim Mazret and Jesmir Bandli, for the murder of Albanian citizens in Prizren on 3 January 2023. In the indictment, “Cobra”, is charged that on January 3rd, 2023, 4:10, near his local “Cbra City”, in the Prizren-Zhur magistrate, deliberately deprived of life V. C, risking even the lives of the damaged R.T. (S) and A.B.

Until the case, according to the prosecution's indictment it had come after the injured had not agreed to the high bill at the bar, thus starting a row with the bar workers.