Murder for hire in Deçan, this is the reasoning of the Court of Appeal for returning the case to a retrial

The charge of the Prosecutor's Office of Peja, which claims that the deceased Ferdinand Gjini was deprived of his life due to revenge, has not yet received a meritorious epilogue in the regular courts since 2018. This is because for the second time in a row the criminal case against him defendants Bekim Raja, Avni Sinanaj, Murat Sinanaj and...

The accusation of the Prosecutor's Office of Peja, which claims that the deceased Ferdinand Gjini was deprived of his life due to revenge, has not yet received a meritorious epilogue in the regular courts since 2018.

This is because, for the second time in a row, the criminal case against the defendants Bekim Raja, Avni Sinanaj, Murat Sinanaj and Gjon Pnishi, who are charged with this murder, is being dismissed by the courts of the highest instance, which are finding violations procedural.

First, the Supreme Court, and now the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Court of Peja, where the latter found the defendant guilty of the murder of the deceased Gjini in May of this year.

This decision was annulled by the panel of the Court of Appeal, chaired by Vaton Durguti with members Hashim Çollaku and Abdullah Ahmeti, who, after holding the panel session on August 31, 2022, found that the decision of the Court of Peja contains an essential violation of the provisions of criminal procedure, reports "Oath for Justice".

As for the findings of the Court of Peja regarding the guilt of the defendant Raja for the criminal offense of aggravated murder, the Appeal has emphasized that the court of first instance had not clarified in the ruling all the circumstances that constitute the criminal offense of assault in felony murder.

"The essential violations in this point of the judgment, respectively in the provision of the judgment consist in the fact that the court of first instance failed to clarify all the dilemmas related to the institution of inducement in the commission of the criminal offense by the accused.

That all the violations that the court of first instance evaluates during the proceedings, and it has been concluded that the same are directly related to the proof of the facts that characterize the criminal offense that is charged to the accused", the reasoning states of the Appellate panel.

Another violation, however, of a non-absolute (relative) character. The appeal also considers the violation of Article 237 par.6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that the court's order for the declaration of a cooperating witness does not prevent the investigation of crimes against the latter. criminal charges punishable by at least 10 years of imprisonment, since in this case no criminal prosecution has been initiated against the cooperating witness.

As for the defendant Avni Sinanaj, the Appeal has found a violation in the case of the legal designation.

The defendant is charged with the criminal offense of aiding and abetting aggravated murder.

The Appeal has justified this setting because the institute of assistance and co-perpetration are two separate institutes and they cannot go together in a legal setting.

"The court of first instance should have taken into account that these two institutes, aid and co-perpetration, cannot go together, and that all these suggestions were also presented in the judgment of the Supreme Court, according to which the judgment was annulled the Court of Appeal as well as the Basic Court", it is stated in the reasoning of the Appeal.

The appeal also found that the CDs that are part of the criminal case were never heard to prove the factual situation.

Furthermore, the Appeal found that the role of the cooperating witness was not defined by the decision of the Court of Peja.

"The role of the cooperating witness "D1" has not been defined in order to clarify the perpetrator of the criminal offense, the assistant, the instigator, the collaborator, which are very important issues because the legal provisions from article 237 of the Criminal Code, related to article 123 par.5 the actions that must be undertaken by the body that conducts the procedure are expressly defined, to determine the role of each perpetrator of the criminal offense, which is foreseen by Article 262", the Appeal's reasoning states.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal emphasizes that after having evaluated all the evidence of the case in a generalized way, they came to the conclusion that in this criminal case the Court of Peja did not act according to the judgment of the Supreme Court.

"The panel of this court has evaluated in a general way all the evidence from the case files and has come to the conclusion that in this criminal case the court of first instance did not act properly as required by the Court's judgment Supreme Court of Kosovo, to clarify the existence of the criminal offense of aggravated murder, while we have three accused, to clarify each action taken by each accused to prove the institution of complicity, assistance, encouragement as forms of cooperation in the commission of the criminal offense, because the same must be proven clearly, to prove the guilt of each accused", states the reasoning of the Appeal.

The appeal has asked the Court of Peja to evaluate one by one all the material and personal evidence, starting from the CD, in order to find the answers to what happened on the critical day and who were the perpetrators.

"To prove that on the critical day in May 2012, did a criminal offense occur or did it not occur, in what circumstances did it occur, who were the perpetrators of the criminal offense, which are proven on the basis of witnesses, respectively personal and material evidence.

Also, the court of first instance should take into account that since the detention of the three accused has been continued, the sentence "that the accused will serve their sentences after the full force of this judgment" should not be used, it is stated in the reasoning of the Appeal.

Otherwise, on August 31, 2022, the Court of Appeals reviewed the appeals of the Basic Prosecution in Peja and the defense, in the case of the convicts Bekim Raja, Avni Sinanaj, Murat Sinanaj and Gjon Pnishi, for the murder of the late Ferdinand Gjini.

The Basic Court in Peja, on May 20, 2022, sentenced Bekim Raja to 14 years and 6 months of imprisonment, Avni Sinanaj to 8 years and 6 months of imprisonment, Murat Sinanaj to 18 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and Gjon Pniš to 6 years of imprisonment. which sentence he has served, reports "Oath for Justice".

Otherwise, on April 15, 2021, the prosecutor Valbona Dishaj-Hajhsaj reclassified the criminal offense, from the criminal offense of criminal association, to other forms of cooperation.

Against this judgment, the Basic Prosecutor's Office of Peja filed an appeal due to the decision on the punishment, demanding that the convicts be given a harsher punishment.

Meanwhile, the Appellate Prosecutor's Office has requested that the complaint of the Basic Prosecutor's Office and the representatives of the injured parties be approved as well-founded, while the complaints of the defendants' defenders be rejected as unfounded.

Even the representatives of the injured parties, lawyers Teki Bokshi and Korab Bokshi, have filed an appeal due to the decision on the punishment, demanding that the accused be given a harsher punishment.

Lawyer Teki Bokshi said that the decision on the punishment is contrary to the guidelines of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, therefore he requested that the decision on the punishment be in harmony with this instruction.

However, the lawyer Korab Bokshi said that he remains close to the submitted complaint and asked the Court of Appeal to take into account the response to the complaint compiled together with the lawyer Teki Bokshi.

On the other hand, the defender of the accused Murat Sinanaj, the lawyer Gëzim Kollçaku, filed a complaint due to essential violations of the procedural provisions, incorrect verification of the factual situation and the decision on the punishment.

Lawyer Kollçaku said that he based the complaint precisely on the announcement of the cooperating witness, since according to him, in this case, all legal provisions were violated.

He said that this judgment is violated also because the indictment is based on the statements of the defendant Gjon Pnishi, saying that the court did not take into account the statements of the witness D1, who decisively said that "I was in prison, I visited Gjon Pnishi, he told me in his own words that I killed the deceased'', and that according to the lawyer Kollçaku, his client had no connection.

Furthermore, he said that in the complaint he presented nine essential differences between the statement of Gjon Pnishi and the material evidence that prove, according to him, that his client is innocent.

Therefore, he requested that the verdict be changed and, in the absence of evidence, that his client be acquitted of the charge or that the case be returned to a retrial.

The defense of the accused, Avni Sinanaj, the Kosovare Kelmendi lawyer, also filed a complaint due to essential violations of the procedural provisions, incorrect and incomplete verification of the factual situation, violation of the criminal law and the decision on the punishment.

She said that she remains close to the written complaint and said that she would add something about the legal qualification in relation to her client Sinanaj, which is also related to the convict Gjon Pnishi.

"Both have been charged and found guilty of aiding and abetting.

According to the Penal Code, complicity and assistance are two forms provided by the Penal Code, and these two cannot go together'', she said.

Meanwhile, he said that the court of first instance did not consider the judgment of the Supreme Court, which says that other claims in the requests for protection of the legality of the defense should be taken into account.

Also, according to Kelmendi, the CDs, which have not been heard in any court hearing, and which the CD said the defense does not possess, even suspect are in the case files, have been listed as administered evidence.

Therefore, the same requested that the case be returned to reinstatement and retrial.

Even the defender of the accused Bekim Raja, the lawyer Sylë Lokaj, has filed an appeal against the verdict of the first instance due to essential violations of the procedural provisions and incorrect verification of the factual situation.

Lawyer Lokaj said that the prosecution has changed the indictment, although they have not accepted this, calling it an improvement, but according to him, the defense has never been given the opportunity to declare regarding this change.

He also said that the procedure of announcing witness D1 as a cooperating witness was done in violation of the relevant legal provisions.

Lokaj added that the current verdict is a copy of the previous annulled verdict, thus proposing that the same verdict be annulled and the case be reinstated or that his client be released from criminal responsibility.

The accused Bekim Raja, Avni Sinanaj and Murat Sinanaj, before the panel composed of judge Vaton Derguti (chairman), Hashim Qollaku (referring judge) and Abdullah Ahmeti (member), said that they support the complaints and statements of their defenders in this session.

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court has annulled the conviction of the Founder against Bekim Raja, Murat Sinanaj, Avni Sinanaj and Gjon Pnish, who were sentenced to 49 years in prison, this decision confirmed by the Appeal.

The Supreme Court has reasoned that the provision of the judgment of the first instance court is unclear and contrary to the legal definition of the criminal offense of criminal association.

According to the Supremes, in the criminal association, the members of the group are criminally responsible for the criminal acts resulting from the criminal plan even if they did not directly participate in the commission of the concrete act from the criminal plan of the group.

However, in the case of the defendants, the Supreme Court found that their actions are not part of the criminal association, but of other forms of cooperation between the convicts for committing murder.

In the end, the Supreme Court emphasized that the judgment's disposition should be structured differently from the current one, describing separately the actions of each accused in accordance with the role of each defendant.

"Also, the legal definition is contrary to the factual description, due to the fact that all of them have been accused as perpetrators of the murder, committed within the framework of the criminal association, while in the description of the criminal offense, it is said that the accused BR, as the pusher, pushed the accused, Xh.P., in the way that the accused Xh.

and A., in the role of assistant, helped the accused M. as the perpetrator to kill the deceased, who killed the deceased and in such circumstances the legal description of the criminal offense, except that it is contrary to the factual description, it is also unclear, because from the description of the criminal offense it appears that apart from the perpetrator of the murder, we are dealing with the instigator of the murder, the accessory to the murder, but no one has been found guilty, neither for instigation nor for aiding in the murder, but as killer", says the reasoning of the Supremes.

The Supreme Court has considered the judgment of the Court of Appeal illegal, due to the fact that it did not give reasons for the appeal claims, but was satisfied with findings "that the claims from the appeal are unfounded" without a detailed justification, as to why such appeal claims were unfounded.

Otherwise, in July 2020, the Court of Appeal considered legal and fair the decision of the Basic Court in Peja, by which the defendants Bekim Raja, Murat Sinanaj, Avni Sinanaj and Gjon Pnishi were sentenced to 49 years in prison, for the murder of the now deceased Ferdinand Gjini.

Just as the Court of Peja had decided, the Court of Appeal had also confirmed that the murder of the now deceased Gjini was done by the unscrupulous revenge of the accused Bekim Raja, who, in the capacity of the instigator, through the defendant Gjon Pnishi, had promised the amount of 100 thousand euros, while the defendants Murat and Avni Sinanaj had agreed to carry out Raja's order.

According to the decision provided by the "Oath of Justice", Appel emphasized that it was proven that the defendants Gjon Pnishi and Bekim Raja had met in the garage of cooperating witness D1 in Switzerland, where the defendant Raja had asked Pnishi to kill the now deceased Gjini , or to find someone to kill the same person.

According to the Appeal, the factual situation was proven right when the accused Pnishi, after returning to Kosovo, contacted the accused Sinanaj about the request of the defendant Raja, for the murder of the now deceased Gjini.

According to the Appeal, the accused Avni Sinanaj had agreed that, together with the accused Murat Sinanaj, they would carry out Raja's order, so that the accused Pnishi and Avni Sinanaj, in the capacity of assistants, helped the accused Murat Sinanaj as the perpetrator of the murder in the execution of the order of the defendant Raja, in the capacity of pusher, who has promised a reward in the amount of 100 thousand Swiss francs.

"After that, preparatory actions had begun, so that Gjoni had started to communicate frequently with Ferdinand until the accused Avni, taking advantage of Gjoni's difficult economic situation, had started to provide the latter with narcotic substances for the purpose of seduction, which substances then Ferdinand sold them.

This situation continued until the critical day, namely until June 23, 2016, when in the village of Prapaqan-Community of Deçan, Ferdinand Gjini was killed by the accused Murat Sinanaj", it was stated in the judgment of the Appeal.

The appeal had reasoned that the factual situation had been proved by the administered evidence, and especially by the testimony of the brother of the deceased Ferdinand, Pashk Gjini, who had said that before the murder of the deceased, the same had had a physical conflict with the accused Bekim Raja, respectively physical fight between Mark Kqira, Pashk Gjini and Ferdinand Gjini against Bekim Raja and as a result, according to the Appeal, the murder was ordered by the accused Raja.

The appeal concluded that the factual situation was also confirmed by the statement of the defendant Gjon Pnishi, who confirmed the motivation of Bekim Raja's revenge, the motive for financial gain, the division of roles for the murder and the meeting with Bekim Raja.

"That the above-mentioned accused have committed the criminal offense for which they have been accused is also proven by the interception reports dated 27.02.2021, regarding the telephone communications between the accused Avni Sinanaj and Gjon Pnishi who talked mainly about the murder;

the phone monitoring of the 26.02.2017, of the conversations between the accused Gjon Pnishi and Murat Sinanaj, in which case the accused Gjon sent a message to Murat with the content "Murat Gjoni, I called Avni, I'm not even calling you, what about you It's really bad for you that I took 18 years and I didn't mention my name to anyone, I didn't even call me, on March 30 I have a chance that you won't fall for me with q.. that mother because I don't care about you the first time that you have I killed Bekim Raja because he paid for it, because I got it, he has it, are you being greedy, did you take 50,000 francs from him in two days?

Further, the Appeal had justified its decision with the fact that the defense of the accused Pnishi had proven the meeting with the defendant Raja, the lunches and dinners held in the presence of the cooperating witness "D1", Raja's order to the accused Avni Sinanaj to committed the murder, how the lawyer Haxhi Çeku had influenced Pnishi not to tell the truth about the persons involved in the criminal offense, as well as the promise he had given to Gjon Pnishi that he would be released by the day of the trial.

The appeal concluded that the factual situation was confirmed by the testimony of the witness "D1", who confirmed the meeting of Gjon Pnishi with Bekim Raja, the motive for revenge that Raja had against the deceased, the financial benefit for the defendant Pnishi, that the money for the latter was received by the sister and the sister's son in Switzerland and that this money was received from the cooperating witness "D1".

From the statement of the cooperating witness, the Appeal also proved the influence of the defendant Raja on the cooperating witness, who without the permission of the court had called the witness who had to testify in front of the court the next day, where Raja had told him "be careful what he's talking, don't listen to your father or my father, because they don't know anything, don't take it upon yourself, they have nothing to do and we've done this job".

Likewise, according to the Appeal, the accused Raja had promised the cooperating witness "D1", with the words: "to support the family and I will stay behind and do this work", noting that up to one million is behind him.

The claims of the defenders of the defendants, Kosovar lawyers Kelmendi, Gëzim Kollëaku, Arianit Koci and Granit Vokshi, that the verdict of the first instance contains an essential violation of the criminal procedure, with the reasoning that the verdict is based only on the statement of the cooperating witness and the defendant Gjon Pnishi, Apeli had considered them as unfounded.

The defense of the accused had claimed that the court of first instance wrongly proved the factual situation, giving credence to the testimony of the defendant Gjon Pnishi and the witness "D1".

According to the defense, their statements were fabrications and are not supported by other evidence administered in the first instance.

"The provision of the appealed judgment is clear, understandable and concrete.

In the justification of the judgment, appropriate reasons are given on all the decisive facts of this criminal legal case.

The court of first instance evaluated the evidence in accordance with Article 370, par. 6 and 7 of the KPCRK.

He has fully presented his assessments of which facts and for what reasons he takes them as proven or unproven and made an evaluation of contradictory evidence.

He analyzed all the procedural evidence during the judicial review and presented his own conclusions regarding them, which the Court of Appeal of Kosovo approves as fair, objective and legal", the Appeal decision stated.

In the end, the Appeal rejected the appeal of the Prosecutor's Office of Peja and the representatives of the injured party, who requested a higher sentence for the accused, for the reason that the Court of Peja took into account all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of which affect the type and amount of punishment.

According to the Appeal, the sentences imposed by the Court of Peja were fair and in harmony with the degree of criminal responsibility of the accused, the social dangerousness of the criminal offense and the consequences caused.

"As a particularly mitigating circumstance for the accused Gjon Pnishi, the fact that he has cooperated with the justice bodies for clarifying this legal-criminal case, while for the other accused, no mitigating circumstances have been found.

As an aggravating circumstance, the court of first instance for the accused took as a basis the fact that they acted in a criminal association", it was stated in the Appeal decision.

Otherwise, the Basic Court in Peja, on November 21, 2019, found the accused guilty of murder for hire in Deçan, Bekim Raja, Avni Sinanaj, Murat Sinanaj and Gjon Pnishi.

According to the verdict announced by the chairman of the trial panel, judge Sami Sharraxhiu, the accused Murat Sinanaj was sentenced to 19 years of imprisonment, the accused Bekim Raja to 15 years of imprisonment, the accused Avni Sinanaj to 9 years of imprisonment, while the accused Gjon Pnishi to 6 years of imprisonment.

Otherwise, according to the indictment filed on July 26, 2018, by the Basic Prosecutor's Office in Peja and updated on April 15, 2021, it is said that the defendant Bekim Raja in May 2012, in Switzerland, deliberately and with the aim of unscrupulous revenge the defendant Gjon Pnishi, that the latter together with the defendants Avni and Murat Sinanaj, commit the murder of the victim Ferdinand Gjini.

According to the indictment, the defendant Bekim Raja had promised them that if they carry out the murder as soon as possible, they will be rewarded with the amount of 150 thousand CHF, and if the murder is delayed, they will be rewarded with 100 thousand CHF.

According to the indictment, the murder of the deceased came after Ferdinand Gjini, together with Mark Kqiraj, had beaten the defendant Bekim Raja.

The prosecution describes that Raja, through the cooperating witness "D1", met with the defendant Gjon in Switzerland who had concluded an agreement, the defendant Gjon took the order to the defendants Avni and Murat for the murder of the victim Ferdinad Gjini, which murder was committed on June 23, 2014, in the village of Prapaqan in Deçan, by the defendant Murat, who, according to the indictment, was awarded a maximum of CHF 100,000.

With that, he was accused of having committed the criminal offense of "instigation to commit serious murder" from Article 179, paragraph 1, point 1.8 related to Article 32, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

It is said that the defendants Gjon Pnishi and Avni Sinanaj, after the agreement between them to carry out the murder according to the order of the defendant Raja, began preparations for this action since 2012.

According to the accusation, the defendants Avni and Gjon took advantage of the poor financial condition of the victim Ferdinad, luring her with narcotic substances, so that the night before the murder, the defendants met the victim in Gjakovë and agreed that on the critical day the victim, along with Pnishin, to go to the defendant Avni in Isniq of Deçan to get a quantity of narcotics.

Sipas akuzës, në ditën kritike viktima niset për në drejtim të Deçanit, i përcjellë nga i pandehuri Gjon Pnishi dhe me të arritur te ura që lidh fshatrat Llukë e Prapaqan, i pandehuri Murat i cili kishte dalë në pritë, me të vërejtur viktimën duke kaluar mbi urë pas veturës së të pandehurit Gjon, me armë automatike shtënë në drejtim të veturës duke e privuar nga jeta.

Sipas akuzës, pas vrasjes i pandehuri Bekim të pandehurve Gjon, Avni dhe Murat përmes “D1” dhe familjarëve të pandehurit Gjon, Avni dhe Murat, si shpërblim ua jep shumën prej 100 mijë CHF.

Me çka, duke vepruar si bashkëkryerës, thuhet se kanë kryer veprën penale të ndihmës në kryerjen e veprës penale të vrasjes së rëndë, nga neni 179, paragrafi 1 pika 1.6 e lidhur me nenin 31 dhe nenin 33, paragrafi 1 të KPK-së.

The accused Murat Sinanaj is said that on June 23, 2014, at around 8:40 a.m., in the village of Prapaqan in Deçan, according to the order of the defendant Bekim and through the help of the defendants Gjon and Avni, in planning the murder, with the aim of obtaining financial benefit , cunningly kills the deceased Ferdinad Gjini, shooting at the deceased's car with an automatic weapon

With that, he was accused of having committed the criminal offense of aggravated murder under Article 179, paragraph 1, point 1.4 and 1.6 of the KPK.

Daily News

Murder for hire in Deçan, this is the reasoning of the Court of Appeal for returning the case to a retrial