The death of a police cadet in an accident, Apel confirms the sentence to two indictees

“rejected as groundless complaints by the DKR Foundation Prosecutor in Pec, authorised representatives of the damaged party, av. Salih Macay, of the injured E. St. And defender Arton Duraku, av. Chiefs Ibrahim and the accused, Nezir Duraku, and the Act of Basic Court of DKR in Pec, PKR.nr.22/2025 of the date 19,11.2025, proves”, says the decision of Appeal compiled on March 4th 2026, reports “Justice Vow“.

In response to the Foundation's decision, the complaint had filed the Constitutional Prosecutorship in Pec because of essential violations of the penal procedure's provisions, misconception, and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation, violation of the Criminal Law, and the decision on condemnation. It has proposed changing the complaining court and the accused found guilty under the proposal in the indictment, and stiffer sentences are pronounced.

The authorised representative of the damaged party, lawyer Salih Mcaj, has filed complaints because of the sentence ruling, with proposals for the complaint court to be amended in terms of the legal selection of criminal acts, so that the accused be convicted under the indictment proposal and more severe sentences were pronounced.

The E.S. injured, filed complaints because of essential violations of criminal procedure provisions, mispronounced and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation, violation of the Penal Law, and the verdict on conviction, with proposals that the complaint be annulled and the case turned into retrial and deployment.

On the other hand, the defender of the accused, Arton Duraku, lawyer Shefesh Ibrahimi, filed complaints over essential violations of criminal procedure provisions, misconception, wrong and incomplete proof of the actual situation, violation of the Penal Law, and the verdict on the verdict, with proposals to amend the complaint, and accused Arton for the first criminal act to pronounce the mildest sentence, while for the second work to be released from the prosecution or for this part of the guilty plea to be annulled and the case returned to retrial.

The accused Nezir Duraku, on the other hand, filed complaints because of substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions, incorrect and incomplete confirmation of the actual situation, violation of the Penal Law, and the conviction ruling, with proposals to amend the complaint, and accused Neziri be acquitted or cancelled, and the case be returned to the retrial.

The Parapet Appeals Prosecutor has proposed that the prosecution's complaint and the representatives of the damaged party be approved, while complaints by defendant Arton Duraku and accused Nezir Duraku are denied as groundless.

The College of the Court of Appeals, with President Mentor Hajra and members Devdet Abazi and Valbona Musliu-Selimaj, has found that the act of first degree does not contain essential violations of the criminal procedure, the confirmation of the actual situation is complete and correct, and that there is no violation of the Criminal Law.

According to Apel's decision, for rescinding the initial criminal acts, there has been sufficient and convincing reason to pass from the form of eventual desire in the form of carelessness.

This review, Apel estimates that it is based largely on the super-expert of communications, which has found that Arton Duraku, at the critical moment, has taken concrete action to avoid a driving accident with the wheel, but still the crash has taken place as a result of the slowdown and transition to the opposite tape.

According to Apel's decision, for the actions of “the non-recognition of the aid”, Apel has supported resultation in the basic form since forensic expert found that victim F. St., he's passed away at the scene in a very short time as a result of mass bloodshed. Hence, conditions for the qualified form of such criminal acts have not been met.

The Court of Appeals estimates that although the accused have seen the victim still alive and have heard his cries for help, the recall in paragraph 1 of the relevant articles is fair, as death has taken place very quickly and possible aid would not have had a saving effect.

According to Apel's decision, the pronounced sentences are proportional to the circumstances of the case, taking into account both extenuating and exacerbating circumstances, such as the fact that the two accused were not convicted earlier, the victim's new age, that he was the father of a minor child, leaving the scene without offering help and efforts to conceal the work.

“ ... for accused Nezir Duraku as a serious circumstance has taken the highest degree of intent to commit criminal acts, that the accused has left the scene, not offering help to the injured person, that after committing a criminal act, he has made a maximum effort to conceal the offense, and that the accused has pronounced sentence on him as in the complaint act of”, in the verdict.

According to Apel's decision, the complaint of the injured E. The S., for other grounds of complaint, other than the sentence ruling, has been rendered illegal under Article 381 pars. Three of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In the first trial, the two defendants were sentenced to 15 years in prison (joined) by the Pec Foundation Court.

The first - degree ruling had confirmed that the Court of Appeals had confirmed, but the Supreme Court had approved the requirements for protecting the legality of Duraku's convicts so that the Constitutional and Appeals Act had been annulled and the case had turned into first degree retrial.

Then, the Constitutional Court in Pec in the retrial on January 14, 2025, has sentenced accused Arton Duraku to 6 years and 8 months in prison, while to 10 months in prison accused Nezir Duraku. The case has been retriald by Appeals through the decision of May 5, 2025, where on November 4, 2025, the founder sentenced Arton Durak to a unique sentence of 5 years and 6 months of Burigm, meanwhile, Nezir Durak to 10 months in prison.

Otherwise, at the April 3, 2023 session, the two accused Arton and Nezir Duraku pleaded guilty to the criminal acts they were charged with.

According to the indictment, filed on March 2, 2023, by Pec's Founding Prosecutor, it is said that defendant Arton Duraku, on November 21, 2022, in the village of Jashanica of Cline City, breaking the law on public traffic now causes the late F. St.

According to the indictment, until the defendant, without a driver's license, was leading the brand truck “Mercedes Atego”, who was unregistered and not technically regular, as soon as he reached the upper village of Skenderaj Kline, did not adjust the speed of moving to the conditions of the road and exceed the 50km of what was allowed to over 90km/h and move to the left in the opposite circuit tape, where he was rotating with his branding vehicle <x>> The F.S.h.g. the first side of the trailer, where he hit the front-side of the frontcar <x5H) where he had suffered the first victim.

According to the indictment, the defendant, Arton Duraku, reportedly committed the criminal act “The threat of public traffic” by Article 370, par. 5 connected to par. One of KPRK.

Meanwhile, in the indictment it is said that, at the high-time location and place, defendant Arton, as truck driver “Mercedes Atego”, does not offer help to the other person who was hurt in the traffic accident caused by the defendant's truck, resulting in the death of victim F. Sh, where, after the accident described, he stops the truck and along with his parent, defendant Nezir Duraku, exits the truck near the victim but offers no help and leaves the scene while the victim changes lives.

And with this it is said that the defendant has Arton Duraku has also committed criminal acts “the failure to help a person injured in the public traffic disaster” by Article 374, par. 3 KPRK.

While defendant Nezir Duraku charges that in the event described as superior, he does not offer help to the other person whose life has taken place in direct danger even though he could do so without any serious danger to himself or the other.

In addition, after defendant Arton Duraku reportedly caused the truck traffic accident, where defendant Nezir was a passenger in it, exit the truck, approach the victim, but offer no help and leave the scene while the victim changes his life.

In this case, defendant Nezir Duraku is said to have committed a criminal offence:” by Article 188, par.4 KPRK's.