Thursday, April 30th 2026
At the Basic Court in Pristina, a hearing was held about the tear gas in the Assembly of Kosovo.
The accused Fitore Pacolli Dalipi, Salih Zyba and Drita Millaku appeared in court on Thursday.
They are accused of firing tear gas canisters on March 21, 2018 from around 12:10 to 15:40.
In the opening words, the defense of Salih Zyba, lawyer Hasan Jashari said that political actions are not a criminal offense and that “the smoke used in the Parliament of Kosovo was used to achieve a political goal”. shows that he is guilty. We, as defenders, consider that the smoke that was used in the parliament hall was used only to achieve a political goal, to prevent a decision from the Parliament of Kosovo, which was harmful to our country, where 25 percent of the territory will be taken from our country based on that decision. I consider that the political action is not a criminal offense.
Fitore Pacolli’s lawyer, Lavdrim Salihu, said that the indictment is deficient in terms of the time when the crime was committed.
“My client is accused of having committed the criminal offense as defined on 21.03.2018 from 12:10 to 15:40. This charge is deficient because in terms of time, even though we are dealing with a concrete action, a time interval of 23 hours. We do not have specifics of the actions of each of the perpetrators, as the Prosecution claims, while the description is complete in terms of evidence. As can be seen in the report with the same reference number, these documents coincide with the case in the Police, some of which are also dealt with by this court. have received an epilogue”, he said.
Furthermore, in front of the jury, he said that “the indictment is also based on unfounded evidence”.
“In this regard, the indictment is also based on unfounded evidence, starting from the report of the IJD expert. In this regard, even though we are dealing with a report, which in this case is proposed as expert evidence, we cannot have expertise that is the main evidence in legal-criminal matters until the hearing of the expert or the compiler of the report can be proposed in this case, for which it is the obligation of the prosecution to prove guilt and to support the evidence it has proposed. In this regard, if the prosecution does not propose hearing the same, it remains for the defense to propose the same, even though this is a legal paradox because it is proposed by us to prove innocence and not the prosecution to prove guilt,” he said. Valdrin Krasniqi has opposed the request of the defense of Fitore Pacolli for the appointment of an expert, as he said that the report of the group of experts is sufficiently clear.
“I oppose the request for the appointment of an expert, assessing that the aforementioned expert report is sufficiently clear, which proves that the defendants on 21.03.2018 have used weapons, in this case, irritant gas as defined in The Law on Arms. The reason for the objection is that this report is also supported by other material evidence, such as the report of the investigation of the scene, the video recordings that have been proposed and administered as evidence during this judicial review, but also by the decision of the Presidency of the Assembly of Kosovo, dated March 21, 2018, in which it was decided that the defendants present here, due to the throwing of tear gas, should be sentenced to disciplinary measures – the ban on participation in the extraordinary session of the assembly”, he said.
This request of the lawyer was also rejected by the court.
Further, the defense of Fitore Pacolli, lawyer Lavdrim Salihu, had remarks about the material evidence of the Prosecution.
“As for the report 04/2-1I/023/2019 proposed as an expert report, it should be declared as inadmissible evidence and separated from the documents of the case as unarticulated evidence in the sense of Article 19, because it is not known who compiled this report, for which even if it is read as evidence, it will make it impossible for us to propose the compiler, as a witness or expert, evidence that would be exculpatory or prove the instability of the evidence. As for the decision of the chairmanship of the assembly, it cannot serve as evidence the chairmanship of the assembly is not a competent body to assess the elements of the criminal offense, for which of course we have appeared before the court”, he said.
The defendant, Salih Zyba, also commented on the statements of the prosecution.
“His statement in the first introductory word, ‘the legislator has foreseen’, this legislator is now contesting, not the consequence, but our very being… And it was controversial because in the last sentence ‘the same during that session have consumed and disciplinary measures have been taken’ which means the legislator has also adjusted the norms when it is qualified, it is considered a criminal offense and when eventually as in the present case, when a criminal offense and when a disciplinary violation, and if it was a criminal offense then there were disciplinary measures contrary to the norms”, said Zyba.
He too, like the lawyer, said that the case has no expertise.. The accused, Salih Zyba e called the prosecutor’s office of that time as “captured”. the duties of the deputy or as the legislator defines it earlier”, he said.
Prosecutor Valdrin Krasniqi has asked the court to withdraw the admonition to Zyba.
“I ask the court to admonish the defendant Salih Zyba for the way he refers to the State Prosecutor’s institution. As for the contestation of the expert’s report, this report contains all the elements that he should contain a report, I listened attentively to the request of the defendant Salih Zyba, who emphasized that the origin of these weapons should be mentioned in the report. The report contains this information,” he said.
The lawyers have proposed to watch the video recordings from the date when the criminal offense is alleged to have been committed, with which the defendants are charged.
The next session will continue with the examination of the video recordings, for which the judge Sabit Sadikaj has decided to postpone the next session for an indefinite time, where the session can be held in a room where these Prosecution evidences are displayed.
We use cookies to improve the experience and to display advertisements (Google AdSense).
By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the use of cookies according to
Privacy Policy
and
Cookies Policy.
You can reject non-necessary cookies by clicking “Reject”.
Source: prizrenpost
Etiketa: Brief
