Innocent four accused of pushing terrorism, Prosecution says their guilt will prove proven otherwise.

The accused had also been declared innocent, even the initial session held on March 4th, 2024, reports “The Battle for Justice”, broadcast Periscope.

Following the indictment's statement of indictees, Thursday's hearing continued with the award of entry speech by the parties in this procedure.

The special prosecutor, Father and Dema, stated that from the evidence to be administered in this trial, it will prove that the accused in co-operation and residence have organised and distributed propaganda material with extremist content, promoting the organisation's ideology “ISIS” through photos, videos and translated and modified materials for the public on social networks and electronic platforms.

Prosecutor Dema stressed that through evidence from this prosecutor from forensic reports, material evidence as content CDs would result in the prosecution's actions not being random, proving the guilt of the accused.

In the opening address, defender of the accused Veselilaj, lawyer Sabrije Jashari stated that in this case there is not enough evidence to support the well-founded suspicion that her defendant committed criminal acts and that none of the evidence on the subject's paperwork would prove his guilt.

The defender of the accused Beqiri, lawyer Asdren Bytyqi, stated that the provative material did not meet the legal elements of criminal acts to protect him, stressing that there is no evidence that would produce real danger for promoting terrorist criminal acts.

On the other hand, the defender of the accused Hoti, lawyer Valon Yupa, stated that during this trial his defense was not part of the footage, adding that neither his face nor his voice are in those materials.

While the defender of the accused Salihu, lawyer Visar Hadzibeqi stressed that the defense following the investigation of the indictment estimates that only one photograph exists to protect him, which has no sign of the terrorist organisation, saying that during the trial, the innocence of his defense will be proven.

In the line of managing material evidence, prosecutor Dema said they remained on the whole next to the proposed evidence in the indictment, while the defence unanimously rejected them.

Lawyer Bytyqi asked for individualisation of each accused's actions, since according to the device, he said the actions are generalised, while the prosecutor stressed that in evidence they were identified by names each accused.

And lawyer Yupa proposed listening to the digital forensics expert who compiled the phone examination report to protect him.

After assuming the prosecutor's opinion, the court headed by Judge Avni Syla took the decision with which he approved the proposal for the hearing of the digital forensics expert.

Otherwise, Liridon Beqiri was also being accused of being guilty and the procedure was set aside.

The Constitutional Court in Pristina, Beqiri, had sentenced him to 2 years in prison for pushing terrorist acts and 3 thousand euros in illegal weapons penalty. However, the Court of Appeals for Pressure in Terrorism sentenced Beqiri to one year in prison, while for illegal weapons he confirmed his sentence.

According to the indictment filed on 24 January 2024, accused Liridon Beqiri, Besart Veseliaj, Ernes Beqiri, Silver Hoti and Altin Salihu, from the unknown period of time and continuing co-ordination, have distributed and enabled the conveying of messages to other persons in the conduct of terrorist acts.

With this, accused in co-ordination are accused of committing criminal work “Postponing on terrorist activity” by Article 134 regarding KPRK Article 31.

While, according to the second device of the indictment, accused Liridon Beqiri and Besart Veseli from unproven and ongoing date, they have kept in ownership, control or unauthorized possession of weapons contrary to the applicable law.

With this, the accused individually according to the indictment have each committed a criminal act “maintaining ownership, control or unauthorized possession of weapons” by Article 366, par. 1 KPRK. / Periscope/