Apel returns to the restoration of the verdict with which the indictment was confirmed against 53 accused of the Meja massacre: Judgment Conditions Not Completed in Lack

With the case of defenders' complaints against ANULOUS PP.N.66/2023, of the 2508.2025 Special Department Court in Pristina, the case is returned to the first-degree court in the retrial of”, said in Apel's decision compiled on May 25, 2026.

Charged in this case are: Momir Stojanovic, Sreten Chamovovic, Nikola Mitunovic, Milovan Kovacevic, Sergey Perovovic, Veroub Zivkovovic, Milan Kotur, Radomir Colovic, Dragutin Josifovic, Franco Simatovic, Momcilo Stanojovic, Valko Vukovovic, Ilija Todovrov, Sterovac, Dragan Zivovac, Milovanovovic, Danio Zeljac, Veselj, Vesko, Valko, Veskosavacovac, Valac, Vukovico Vukkovo Vukkov, Valackov, Valackov, Dragokokov, Valackov, Milosavackov, Valackov, Valakkov, Valovic, Valovic, Valovic, Valovico Miloko, Valovic, Valko, Valkokov, Valko, Valakov, Valsavovic, Valsavovic, Valkokov, Valsavovic, Vesavovic, Vesavovic, Valovic, Valovic, Valovic, Valsavovic, Valovic, Vesavovic, Vesacovsacov, Valovic, Valovic, Valovic, Valovic, Ves, Ve

37 defenders of the accused had filed complaints against the act of Foundation, with which the SPRK indictment was confirmed, while the main reasons presented in the complaints were: procedural violations, misconceptions, misconception of evidence, violation of the Criminal Law, and lack of sufficient evidence to support the indictment.

On the other hand, the Appeals Prosecution had proposed that the complaint of the defendants be denied as unfounded, while the complaining act was confirmed.

The Kosovo Court of Appeals, after reviewing the subject's paperwork and assessing the prosecution's plea claims, found that the first degree act is involved in violations and that the subject must return to restoration.

The complaint has been included with substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions, so the same should be annulled and the criminal case brought back to the first instance court in the retrial and placing”, the decision said.

Apel's findings:

According to the decision provided by “Battle for Justice”The second scale found that the first-degree court's act is involved with substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions, as the initial review has been held in the absence of indictees without legal conditions being met.

Specifically, according to the Court of Appeals' decision, no reasonable efforts have been made by the first degree to inform the accused of initial examination and to ensure their presence.

The college has found that, despite the fact that the invitation for the session of April 15, 2025, in Albanian translated into the Serbian language, there is no evidence or document supporting the fact that this invitation was published on the tribunal's website, on the State Prosecutor's website, and in Official Gazette.

On the other hand, the College has stressed that it is incompatible with the approach of the first-instance court, which has concluded that conditions have been met to continue with judgment in absence and that reasonable efforts have been made solely on the basis of the summary of the session invitation.

The “alone on the basis of drafting the session's invitation, on the assumption that its publication and the indictment formally on the tribunal's website, the Prosecutor's website, and in the Official Journal, has been realised, where it has continued on this basis to keep the original reviews in absence respectively, considering that legal conditions for its development have been met, which even if such publication had been carried out, according to the College's assessment it would not be enough to meet the standard of rational efforts of<16>, the findings are said.

Apel, explains that the Criminal Procedure Code envisions two separate cases for failing judgment, respectively: when the accused is considered to have relinquished the right to be present in the judicial review and if the court is convinced that reasonable efforts have been made to announce his judicial review and ensure his presence.

In the concrete case, since the procedure is carried out for criminal work “War crimes against the civilian population”, it requires that the court as part of reasonable efforts must meet three conditions to ascertain efforts to ensure those accused in the procedure. These conditions include the depletion of procedures, the development of a full information campaign with clear calls to the accused, and the publication of the invitation and indictment on the State Prosecutor's website, the tribunal's website and the Official Journal.

Appeals' decision reportedly includes calling to every person with relevant information on the defendant's whereabouts to communicate that information to the police.

The second scale finds that, in addition to the first condition, there is no evidence of meeting the condition of publishing the invitation and indictment, and the first-instance court had completely overlooked the development of a full intelligence campaign, which is a condition for meeting the judgment in the absence of the accused.

In restoration, the first degree court is suggested by Appeals to reassign the initial examination and eliminate all violations outlined in this decision, so as to prepare for failing judgment.

Also suggested is the first instance, to implement a full information campaign, public announcement through the police, with the announcement that criminal proceedings are conducted against the accused, as well as a call for any person who possesses information about their whereabouts to communicate that information to the police, Periscope broadcast.