Author: birnEU

Abdullah Limani, of the Kosovo Public Procurement Regulatory Body, said that this procedure was against the law for tenders. “What happened to tender for the supply of food items in Prizren is against any procurement standard,” Limani said. “Supplies, works or services must not be performed once, and then the procedure.”

Fatmir Kastrati, of AAK, said he used his 100 Euros to buy goods at Ben-af. “The decision of assembly was lawful, but then the procurement law was violated and this is not the problem of municipal councillors,” Kastrati said.

The LDK’s press office Prizren reacted with a statement, according to which, without even meeting the legal terms of procurement, the municipality prejudiced the tender winner; therefore, eliminating real competition and violating the law.

Abdullah Thaci, LDK spokesperson, said “the municipality identified the winners themselves and just then formally announced tenders.”

NaimCahan, an official of the organization KDI, said that, based on the calculation of this organization, the sum of 43 600 Euros would have been sufficient to give 80 Euros to 45 families with social cases per month and annually.

Legal Officer of Ben-af, Besnik Kuqi, claimed that the firm had fulfilled “all the conditions required for the competition” and that it had won the tender.

Acting chief of the procurement office in Prizren, Alban Susuri, said that the contract has not been signed because the municipality has no money for it.

However, the municipal spokesman Ymer Berisha said the decision was taken in accordance with the municipal assembly procedures.

“Some officials, including the mayor, have not used the funds,” said Berisha. “I would like to confirm the citizens that we are within the normal practices of decision-making.”

Among questions discussed were: Why was Shkelzen Pruthi excluded from his inheritance? How could his siblings exclude him from the legacy in a process that was held in Municipality Court of Prishtina, in Graqanica’s branch? How could three members of the family give a false declaration? What kind of offense did they commit in this case? Why was the Judicial Council unaware of the article 135 of the law of non-disputable procedure?

Shkelzen Pruthi, currently living in the U.S., was excluded from his inheritance in 2010 because of his siblings’ false declarations. Shkelzen, from Prishtina, is the eldest son of Faik Pruthi who was originally from Gjakova. Faik Pruthi died in 1981. In addition, Shkelzen Pruthi was not included in the transaction when his siblings sold their father’s house, located in Sunny Hill, Prishtina, for 250,000 Euros. The son of Shkelzen Maliqi, Edmond Maliqi raised penal charges against his uncles and aunt for excluding him from his inheritance.

Moreover, BIRN’s research shows that there were many irregularities that resulted in excluding Shkelzen Pruthi from his inheritance. Edmond Pruthi says: “The inherited house was sold from my uncles and aunt and they excluded me from the inheritance.” The judge reviewing this case, Nenad Laziq, was not aware that Faik Pruthi had four inheritors. According to Laziq, based on the article 135 of the law of undisputed procedure, the court has drafted the death act based on the declaration of the three inheritors. “Before they declared that they are the only inheritors, I warned them that if they do not tell the truth, they will be accused of breaching the law” says Laziq.

Enver Peci, Head of the Kosovo Judicial Council, says that he was unaware of this legal possibility and he promises that the Council will ask for a legal stance, which requires the death act to be released by the registrar officials, thus this procedure will avoid any irregularities regarding inheritance.

Even though Blerim Pruthi, Fitore Pruthi and Gazmend Pruthi have sold the house to a third party, Shkelqen Pruthi has already started the procedure of cancelling the transaction contract. He believes that his father’s inheritance will be returned to his family and will be divided equally. This procedure was started in the Basic Court of Prishtina and is being reviewed by Judge Zenel Leku.

Among the questions discussed were: Why did Zejnepe Buzhala claim that police officer Fadil Shishani occupied her apartment? How is it possible that after twelve years the Buzhala family came back to the apartment that Fadil Shishani occupied? Why did the court support this family to return to this apartment and why is the judge on this case intimidated by Shishani? How was the police officer accused? What does Fadil Shishani say about this accusation?  

Judge Skender Zariqi claims that he felt threatened the day Shishani was removed from the apartment. The situation began in 1999 when Shishani occupied the apartment where Buzhala once lived. Buzhala claimed that she was required to leave the apartment during the war. The apartment was given to her for an indefinite amount of time and she has all the proper documentation, which was released by the Center for Preschool Education.

“When we came back from England, in 2001, it was impossible to settle in our apartment because there we found Shishani’s family”, said Buzhala. She made an agreement with Shishani to let them stay in her apartment because they did not have anywhere to go, and they signed a contract. Shishani does that they occupied Buzhala’s apartment because they had no place to stay after the war. According to him, they did not know who the owner of the apartment was and he also confirmed that he signed a contract. Two years later Mr. Shishani went to the municipality to ask for the apartment and found out that the apartment does not belong to Buzhala.

To resolve this issue Buzhala was addressed to the court. The court decided that Shishani family should leave the apartment because their evidence was not taken into consideration. The decision was going to be implemented on September 3, 2012, but the implementation was impossible because Shishani threatened the parties in the court. “Shishani said on the day that the decision was implemented, the Buzhala family and Ibrahim Dobruna, the lawyer of the family, will suffer the consequences,” said Buzhala.  The intimidation was taken into consideration especially since Shishani is a police officer.

In addition, Shishani was charged for intimidating the Kosovo Police Inspectorate. On the other hand, Shishani denies that he intimidated the judge or the parties of the court.

The decision was implemented on September 12, 2012, and the Buzhala family returned to the apartment for only five days. After five days, the apartment was taken from the municipality of Drenas claiming that the apartment belongs to the municipality.

 

Among the questions discussed were: What is happening with the judiciary in Kosovo? Why are the judicial sessions being postponed? What do judges say about this situation? Why are judges skeptical about which code of penal procedure should be used in judicial reviews? Were the judges and prosecutors trained before implementing the Code of Penal Procedures? Was there any interpretation given from the highest instance? What do citizens and the advocates say about this judiciary standoff?

The Balkan Investigative Reporting Network monitoring team found out that during January around 20 sessions were postponed in the municipalities in areas like Prishtine, Gjilan, Mitrovice, Peje and Prizren.

The new system reforms have surprised the judges because it happened rapidly: “We knew that the reform was going to happen but none of them saw the Code of Penal Procedure until the beginning of this year,” said Elmaze Syka, Head of Basic Court in Gjilan. The new Code of Penal Procedure increases the role of the prosecutor and decreases the role of the judge.

In addition, there was no training held for the new procedures: “The problem is that we cannot all be trained and leave the court without judges. We will have a meeting with all the judges and we will find a solution,” said Syka.

Despite the problems that the judges’ face, all the courts of Kosovo should implement the new Code of Penal Procedure according to the Supreme Court of Kosovo. Head of the Prosecution of Basic Court, Syle Hoxha said that this code came to power without training sessions: “The postponement of trials is the main problem because it is affecting our job and it seems that this situation is going to last for a few more months,” said Hoxha.

Postponing trials has directly touched the citizens and the defendants. Shukri Krasniqi, a defendant from Prizren, said, “My trial has been postponed twice. They say that the codes have changed and this is causing us problems because we have families.” There are many severe/serious cases that are being postponed. The judges have not explained why the trial was postponed.

The changes of penal code have also brought some change to criminal offense sentences. Until now the maximum sentence was 40 years in prison, but from now and on the maximum sentence is a life sentence.

Lavdim Krasniqi, the Head of Judiciary Institution in Kosovo, says that all courts in Kosovo will be trained starting February.

 

In January 2013 BIRN published its fifth court-monitoring report, which covered from January 2012until December 2012. The data in this report were incorporated as a result of monitoring the total of 1,441 trials, of which 1040 trials were held. The main findings of BIRN are categorized into twelve points and refer to different problems, ranging from monitoring cases of corruption, procedural violations, violation of the parties rights during the hearings, to the use of mobile phones during the period of trials.

The corruption cases that were monitored have shown that there are still some ex-ministers who were charged but were faced judgement. Moreover, they showed a lack of transparency and professionalism, such as uniforms or proper translators, are still present in courts.

Statistically there was a slight improvement in the courts from the previous years. In 2010 the percentage of unannounced sessions was 50.1 per cent while in 2012 this decreased to 22.4 per cent. Also unlike in 2009,when 59.9 per cent of sessions started late due to the delay of the court or judge of the case, the cases monitored in 2012 notice an improvement with only 33.08 per cent of sessions starting with delays.

BIRN held a press conference to show the monitoring results. Representatives from judicial and other institutions were present, including Kosovo’s Judicial Council, Supreme Court, State Prosecutor; the Ombudsperson, representatives of embassies in Kosovo, OSCE representatives, EULEX and civil society.

The Chairman of the Kosovo Judicial Council (KJC), Enver Peci, commended BIRN for its performance, and added, “it has targeted the areas where the judiciary should engage more.” He also discussed that due to monitoring by BIRN, KJC started disciplinary proceedings against judges who have made procedural violations and isdoing its best to address these issues.

The President of the Supreme Court, Fejzullah Hasan, said that BIRN helped to highlight errors and omissions, which were impossible for them to investigate on their own. He also said that it is unfortunate that schedules were disrespected and uniforms were not used. He also added that there were procedural violations found by the court itself: “The party has told us that the judge has not even been present during the sessions, but in the records he or she is written as present.”

“I was pleased while reading carefully the report by BIRN and I would like to congratulate you for the actual findings which are welcome in our work,” said special prosecutor Besim Kelmendi. He also addressed criticism about the prosecutorial system in terms of the unpreparedness of prosecutors. Moreover, he encouraged BIRN to continue the monitoring of the courts.

Diane E. Tourell, a legal analyst of OSCE, complimented the report of BIRN and stressed that the OSCE is also concerned about procedural violations and welcomes such reports in the future.

 

Among the questions discussed were: What were the police actions during 2012?How many kilograms of narcotic substances were confiscated? What were the statistics of confiscated narcotic substances, of traffic accidents and of confiscated weapons?

The police had many actions during 2012. Some people were arrested during these actions. During the first action the police arrested one suspected person but they could not find two other suspected individuals. The three persons were suspected of committing severe crimes.

The second action concerned illegal weapons. Six persons were suspected and only two were arrested. Two weapons were found, and one of them was illegal. The action was considered successful.

Moreover, the amount of illegal drugs found in Kosovo in 2012 was significantly higher than in 2011. In 2012, 1,300 kilograms of drugs were confiscated. The types of drugs confiscated were: marijuana (1200 kilograms), heroin (92 kilograms), and cannabis plants (10,000). “Justice in Kosovo” cameras were present during three actions where 400 kilograms of marijuana were confiscated.

During one of the actions of the Kosovo police, in Junik, two police officers were injured because they faced resistance while arresting suspects. The two police officers were sent to the hospital in Peja.

The police responded to a report of family violence – a father and mother who were beaten by the son. Medical treatment was offered to the family. Another case included a woman who was beaten by her boss. Two suspects and the victim were sent to the police station. The victim was offered medical treatment.

Among the questions discussed were: Who were the accused former ministers this year? Who was declared guilty to corruption? Why is Kosovo still found among the first states in the list for corruption in region? How many millions of Euros were misused by ministers this year? Which judges were bribed in order to announce unlawful decisions?

In 2012, ministers visited the court because they were accused for misusing their official titles. Among the ministers who misused their power are: Slavisa Petkovic (former Minister for Community and Return), Branislav Grbic (former Minister for Community and Return), Valton Beqiri (former Minister of Culture), Astrit Haraqia (former Minister of Culture), and Bujar Bukoshi (former Minister of Education Science and Technology). Some of the cases now are closed and some of them have just opened. Another very important accusation was the deputy and minister Fatmir Limaj who is accused of violating several laws. Fatmir Limaj continues being trialed.

Another important event was the suicide of Dino Hasanaj, the Head of Kosovo Privatization Agency. The case was closed as a suicide, but the prosecutors are still investigating the reasons behind his suicide. The case of Hasanaj revealed that the ministers were involved in the privatization process.

In addition, there were also some judges who were accused of taking bribes to announce unlawful decisions. Two of the most important cases include the former Head of District Court in Vitia, Drane Simani, who was caught in a meeting of a political party, and Judge Miodrag Pavic who was caught taking bribes.  In this affair, the prosecutors were also included. One of the prosecutors was Nazmi Mustafi, the special prosecutor for corruption, who was suspected in taking bribes in order to release the accused individuals from prosecution.

Another scandal that is worth mentioning is when documents in Peja were stolen. Also, 25 kilograms of gold were confiscated from the police and were missing from the evidence room.

It was also found out that even in Prizren’s prison many irregularities happened. Some of the irregularities were: contraband of drugs, use of mobile phones in prison, personnel stealing from the prisoners, personnel mistreating prisoners. The head of the prison in Prizren did not confirm any of the accusations or irregularities.

BIRN discovered that some policemen were taking bribes and accusations were submitted in the prosecution.

The beginning of 2013 will mark the starting of the judicial system reforms in Kosovo. The law on courts published in the Official Gazette on August 24, 2010, has foreseen some changes in the organizational structure of courts. The same law foresaw that some articles dealing with restructuring will enter into force on January 1, 2013.

All minor offense courts, the municipal and district courts will be merged into a single one – basic court. There will be only one Appeal Court and one Supreme Court, both of them with headquarters in Prishtina.

In total there will be seven basic courts. All these courts will have three departments:

• The department of serious crimes
• The general department  
• The juvenile department

The basic court in Prishtina will be the exception, which, in addition of the above mentioned departments, will also have the department of administrative issues as well as economic issues. So far, cases that have come from these fields have been heard in the Supreme Court.

The Appeals Court will be the second instance court with territorial jurisdiction throughout the Republic of Kosovo. The head office of the appeal court will be in Prishtina. Meanwhile the Supreme Court, which simultaneously is the highest judicial instance in Kosovo and has jurisdiction over the entire territory of the Republic of Kosovo, will also be based in Prishtina.

The main challenge of these reforms is expected to be the lack of adequate facilities for courts.

Regarding to this, the head of Judicial Council, Enver Peci said “we hope that the current situation will be improved by the end of 2013, because until then the palace of justice will be built”.

The innovation of the reform of the judicial system will be the dismissal of lay judges.

According to Peci, this happened due to the professional judgments and also because of the fact that “the usefulness of these judges has been very small.”

This reformation of judicial system has left a specific space for the Supreme Court.

The head of this court, Fejzullah Hasani said that the Supreme Court will play exactly its role, same as all countries around the world do.

Xhabir Zharku ran for mayor of Kaqanik in the years 2007- 2009 and in both elections he was elected as the mayor of Kaqanik. After the second election his position was in risk because he was being prosecuted for violations of law. Zharku violated the law prior to being elected as mayor of the municipality of Kaqanik. He was being investigated for the privatization of a social enterprise. After the tender was released the person that privatized the company was threatened by Xhabir Zharku to sell it to another person.

Moreover, on November 4, 2008, an international judge opened charges and Xhabir Zharku was one of the accused individuals. The police was required to raid his house and there were many weapons found. The main reason of his arrest was the threatening that he did to the individuals that bought the social enterprise.

Mr. Avni Bytyqi, from the INPO (non-governmental organization), says: “We have mentioned earlier that a person that is being investigated should not be part of an election campaign or run for any position because this questions the democracy system. The Central Election Commission and the PDK should not have left him run for that position”

In addition, according to Xhabir Zharku, “this accusation is a spectacle and is not based on facts. Genc Nimoni, from BIRN, says that “Mr. Zharku and the others were declared innocent, but the judge declared him guilty. Despite the sentence, Mr. Zharku continued his job as the mayor of Kaqanik”.

Xhabir Zharku constantly sent requests to the District Court to postpone the sentence, thus he was left free until the judges decided that no request will be accepted anymore. Mr. Zharku left the country and the police could not arrest him. Xhevdet Shala, the lawyer of Xhabir Zharku says: “The reasons for postponing the sentence were the constant complaints that we sent to the District Court. We sent complaints because they did not take into consideration the evidences that we had.”

Avni Bytyqi says: “The attitude of Xhabir Zharku is a good model to see how the people in power treat the judicial system that they have created.”

What do those who have been kept in detention without any reason have to say? How much money is given to compensate one day in detention? What do justice officials say about unfound detention orders?

Why, according to the president of the supreme court of Kosovo, are judges not careful in issuing detention orders?

On the second part of the program Justice in Kosovo discussed new judges, who risk to be removed from the judicial system since they are also engaged as notaries. 

The program begun with the head of Supreme Court, Fejzullah Hasani, who said that Kosovo has became a state of unfounded detention orders.

Mr. Hasani said that Croatian judges approve 25 percent of applications of prosecutions for detentions, while in Kosovo these applications are approved about 90 percent. Only during this year, Kosovo Judicial Council – KJC has paid 135 thousands euro for compensation of 71 persons who have been in detention and who then have been acquitted. A doctor from “Medicus case” required 450 thousands euro for compensation.

Justice in Kosovo showed that KJC is likely to lose millions of euro due to claims being raised by citizens who are held in detention and later the same have been acquitted.

A commission formed within KJC has offered compensation for those people who have been damaged as a result of staying in detention. For one day staying of in detention this commission decided to pay from 6 to 25 euro compensation.

Dissatisfied with the assessment of the damage, some people started to sue KJC in order to increase the amount of compensations – said the report of Justice in Kosovo.

The program also touched base on the case of Rexhep Ibishi who was held in detention prison from December 14, for five consecutive months with allegations that he was smuggling cigarettes. Also, his goods value of 200 thousands euro had been confiscated.

After five months he was released and had pleaded not guilty from the municipal court in Gjilan as well as from Supreme Court.

“For five months of my detention they offered me 2.200 euro compensation,” Mr. Ibishi said.

Dissatisfied with this decision, he filed two lawsuits against Kosovo Judicial Council in Prishtina. The first one was for compensation of moral damage and the second one for compensation of goods, a part of which, according to Mr. Ibishi has been destroyed while he was staying in detention.

Ten years after Mr. Ibishi was detained, Prishtina Municipal Court decided for his first lawsuit. This court in September 2013 decided to increase the amount of compensation of damages from 2, 200 euro to 10, 000 euro.

He claimed that he has received this amount of money and that he is expecting to solve the second lawsuit – the compensation of his goods, which reaches a value of 170, 000 euro.

Another person waiting for compensation for a similar kind of case is is Tunë Pervorfaj – who was arrested in 2008 along with other doctors in the affair known as “Medicus Case”.

Mr. Pervorfaj had been detained for a month and after investigations by the prosecutor he was acquitted.

The lawyer of Prevorfaj, Nikë Shala, told Justice in Kosovo that for the duration of time while his client was detained the KJC offered 530 euro. “We have refused this offer of KJC and for this we filed a lawsuit in the municipal court, with which we have sought compensation for material and moral damage in amount of 450, 000euro,” said Mr. Shala.

Such lawsuits and many other that may come in the future in KJC have prompted leaders of the judiciary to ask judges to be more vigilant when assigning detentions.

This requirement was addressed to the judges in a conference which was organized by KJC away from public eye.

Similarly, during the conference the head of Supreme Court – Fejzulla Hasani as well as the head of KJC Enver Peci reiterated that judges should take extra care and be much more attentive when assigning detention measures.

Mr. Hasani said the most of requirements of prosecutors for ordering detention are approved by the courts.

“Based on the data we have, over 90 percent of prosecutors’ requests for detention are approved. That’s why I can say we have transformed into a state of detentions,” said the head of Supreme Court.

Mr. Peci also said that this trend of detention procedures is not normal. Judges who make the final decision for detention, according to Mr. Peci, do not make the necessary evaluation whether the taken measures are required to ensure the presence of the suspect in the procedure.

Henceforth, the judges will monitor more the decisions on the detention measures, Peci added, claiming that the assessment of the work of judges can get negative due to the large number of unfounded detention orders.