7 minutes agoSupremeity eases the sentence on Edmond Liqi from life imprisonment to 30 years for the murder of his wife
Periskopi(2 hours ago)
(2 hours ago)The Supreme Court of Kosovo, ruling in connection with the complaint by the defender of Edmond Lajqi and the complaint of the authorised representative of the damaged party, has partially approved the complaint and changed the Act of the Constitutional Court in Pec and the Court of Appeals as regards the sentence.
The Supreme Court has ruled that defendants E.L., convicted of serious criminal acts of murder, from Article 173 paragraphs 1 points of the Republic of Kosovo's Penal Code 1.3 and ownership, control or unauthorized possession of weapons by Article 366 paragraphs 1 of the Penal Code, to be pronounced the 30 (thirty) prison sentence, in which the time spent in custody will also be calculated, from April 16, 2024.
In other parts, the rulings of the Constitutional Court in Pec and the Court of Appeals have remained unchanged.
The Supreme Court has found that courts of lower institutions have proved towards the judicial situation regarding the guilty and the judicial appointment of criminal acts, while not finding substantial violations of criminal procedure provisions or violations of criminal law in this respect. He has also estimated that, following the defendant's plea, the complaint claims of misconception or the incomplete state were not allowed according to the Penal Procedure Code provisions.
However, the Supreme Court has estimated that first and second-degree courts have not implemented Article 41 of the Criminal Code towards the pronunciation of a life sentence. According to the Supreme Court's assessment, some of the circumstances considered especially burdensome have not had support in the evidence, while some of them constitute elements of the criminal work itself and, for this reason, cannot justify the pronunciation of the worst punishment, as stated by law.
The Supreme Court has stressed that life imprisonment can be pronounced only in cases of particularly serious circumstances that clearly distinguish the case from the common cases of the same criminal act and when a milder sentence would not be proportional to the weight of the work and the guilt of the perpetrators.
In this case, the Supreme Court has estimated that this legal standard has not been met.
Based on the principle of individualisation and proportional punishment, as well as on the practice of the European Court for Human Rights, the Supreme Court has estimated that the 30-year sentence is proportional to the weight of the criminal act, the degree of guilt and the risk of the defendant, and that with this sentence the purpose of punishment can be realized, both in terms of individual and general prevention.
