Prosecution, irony against Court

The material distributed by the General Prosecutor explains why the Court of Appeal should return the decision of the judge panel composed by Besnik Hoxha, Ardiana Bera and Arjana Caco.

Prosecutors claimed that the Court, in contradiction with the evidence presented by the prosecution and by referring to nonexistent evidence and facts, and by exceeding the competences given to them by the law, have found the two defendants not guilty.

As for the Court’s argument that the Prosecution did not complete a comprehensive investigation for the January 21st events, the Prosecution declared:

“The Prosecution’s investigations did not focus only on the acts and omissions of the National Guard officers, but included offences relating to an illegal organization and participation, violent acts against the police officers, property destruction, etc.  Despite the fact that the court exceeded its competences, we emphasize that the court has no right to take a decision outside the facts brought by the prosecution and the evidence that was verified during the trial, which is clearly defined in article 3/2 of the Criminal Procedure”.

 As for what the court’s comment saying that the prosecution had not investigated the intensity of the attacks in comparison with the actions taken by the defendants because of their duty, the prosecutors claim that they have clearly proven that the victims were with their hands in their pockets when shot, and were not trying to enter the Prime Minister’s office.

“We proved that the victims were unarmed during the entire time, and that they have undertaken no violent actions against the National Guard officers inside the Prime Ministry’s perimeter. All the victims were outside the perimeter when they were shot,” the Prosecution declared.

As for the absence of a motive, which was used by the court to drop the intentional murder charges, the Prosecutors insist:

“The orientation of the conclusive action taken by defendant Ndrea Prendi, expressed with shooting at the crowd of protesters with at least five shots (the bullet found in Faik Myrto’s body, the bullets in the trees and at the UNHCR building) consists of and are expressed by the thrust of the defendant at that moment, with his psychical posture and the awareness of the consequences that it would cause, and as result, the firing of the weapon. This intent of defendant Ndrea Prenda is called ‘Dalus Determinatus’. Although Ndrea Prendi was aware of his actions and the danger those actions were bringing, he was able to predict not only the possibility of the consequences, but he has willingly oriented the actions to cause these consequences”.

According to the Prosecution, the Court should refer to the Constitutional Court decisions in 1999 and 2003 by the Supreme Court, which define the cases when the Court changed the legal qualification without touching the attributes of the Prosecution.

The Prosecution refers to the difference between this case and the Strasbourg case for the murder of Giuliani.

According to the Prosecution, the Penal Court did not take in consideration the expertise of Dritan Zoto and there was no explanation in the verdict for why this action was taken. Protester Ziver Veizi was killed by a direct shot.

“In a very incorrect way, and by avoiding this trajectory that was proved scientifically, they built a hypothetical situation saying that this bullet had hit a wooden material that changed the trajectory. This was used by the court to build the alibi that it was a rebound bullet. In this photo and video it is clear that there is no tree between the victim and the shooter”, the Prosecutors declared.

The Prosecution asked the Appeal to change the February seventh verdict and punish them for the criminal offence with 23 years in prison for Ndrea Prendi and 25 years for Agim Llupo.

Top Channel