Kurse, Prokuroria e Apelit ka propozuar q\u00eb t\u00eb refuzohen ankesat e mbrojtjes, nd\u00ebrsa t\u00eb v\u00ebrtetohet aktgjykimi i Themelores, raporton Betimi p\u00ebr Drejt\u00ebsi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gjykata e Apelit p\u00ebrmes vendimit t\u00eb p\u00ebrpiluar m\u00eb 28 gusht 2024, vler\u00ebsoi se edhe pse aktgjykimi i shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb nuk mund t\u00eb ankimohet p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb shkeljeve esenciale t\u00eb dispozitave t\u00eb procedur\u00ebs penale, megjithat\u00eb e shqyrtoi sipas detyr\u00ebs zyrtare dhe gjeti se nuk p\u00ebrmban shkelje esenciale t\u00eb dispozitave t\u00eb procedur\u00ebs penale e as shkelje t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb cilat detyrimisht do t\u00eb kusht\u00ebzonin prishjen e tij.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
N\u00eb vendimin e Apelit, thuhet n\u00eb ankes\u00eb nuk kontestohet as gjendja faktike t\u00eb cil\u00ebn e ka v\u00ebrtetuar shkalla e par\u00eb, prandaj, as n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim \u00e7\u00ebshtja nuk ka qen\u00eb objekt vler\u00ebsimi i k\u00ebsaj Gjykate, e q\u00eb p\u00ebrkitazi me k\u00ebt\u00eb baz\u00eb ankimore nuk ka mundur t\u00eb kontestohet ngase t\u00eb akuzuarit e kishin pranuar faj\u00ebsin\u00eb e q\u00eb gjykata ua kishte aprovuar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lidhur me pretendimet ankimore p\u00ebr sanksionin penal, Apeli ka vler\u00ebsuar se pretendimet e mbrojt\u00ebsve p\u00ebr nj\u00eb d\u00ebnim m\u00eb t\u00eb but\u00eb jan\u00eb t\u00eb pabazuara.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kolegji i Apelit thekson se Themelorja ka vler\u00ebsuar rrethanat leht\u00ebsuese dhe r\u00ebnduese n\u00eb raport me t\u00eb akuzuarit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
P\u00ebr Musollin, si rrethan\u00eb r\u00ebnduese \u00ebsht\u00eb marr\u00eb shkalla e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale, e q\u00eb rezulton se ai kishte vepruar me dashje direkte dhe faktin se veprat penale \u201cDh\u00ebnie ryshfeti\u201d dhe \u201cMashtrim me subvencione\u201d i ka kryer n\u00eb vazhdim\u00ebsi. Kurse, rrethan\u00eb leht\u00ebsuese jan\u00eb marr\u00eb rrethanat personale t\u00eb t\u00eb akuzuarit (fakti q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb mbajt\u00ebs i familjes), bashk\u00ebpunimi dhe sjellja korrekte me gjykat\u00ebn dhe organet e ndjekjes penale dhe pendimin e thell\u00eb, faktin q\u00eb m\u00eb par\u00eb nuk ka r\u00ebn\u00eb ndesh me ligjin, si dhe pranimin e faj\u00ebsis\u00eb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
N\u00eb an\u00ebn tjet\u00ebr, p\u00ebr Berish\u00ebn, thuhet se rrethan\u00eb r\u00ebnduese \u00ebsht\u00eb marr\u00eb p\u00ebr baz\u00eb shkalla e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale, ku q\u00ebllimi ishte p\u00ebrfitimi i dobis\u00eb pasurore. Edhe p\u00ebr at\u00eb, rrethana leht\u00ebsuese jan\u00eb marr\u00eb rrethanat personale t\u00eb t\u00eb akuzuarit (fakti q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb mbajt\u00ebs i familjes), bashk\u00ebpunimi dhe sjellja korrekte me gjykat\u00ebn dhe organet e ndjekjes penale, pendimin p\u00ebr kryerjen e veprave penale dhe pranimin e faj\u00ebsis\u00eb. Po ashtu, faktin q\u00eb m\u00eb par\u00eb nuk ka r\u00ebn\u00eb ndesh me ligjin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Andaj, marr\u00eb parasysh rrethanat e lartp\u00ebrmendura, gjykata ka ardhur n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim se me d\u00ebnimet e shqiptuara, do t\u00eb arrihet efekti dhe q\u00ebllimi i d\u00ebnimit. Apeli vler\u00ebson se d\u00ebnimet unike t\u00eb shqiptuara ndaj dy t\u00eb akuzuarve, jan\u00eb n\u00eb proporcion me veprat e kryera penale dhe se d\u00ebnimet e shqiptuara do t\u00eb ndikojn\u00eb n\u00eb parandalimin e t\u00eb akuzuarve q\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb ardhmen t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb vepra penale dhe do t\u00eb b\u00ebhet rehabilitimi i tyre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shkalla e dyt\u00eb vler\u00ebson se rrethanat leht\u00ebsuese dhe r\u00ebnduese jan\u00eb aplikuar drejt n\u00eb rastin konkret, n\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtim t\u00eb dashjes direkte t\u00eb t\u00eb akuzuarve, ngase Apeli vler\u00ebson se kjo rrethan\u00eb nuk mund t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet si r\u00ebnduese.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c\u2026marr\u00eb p\u00ebr baz\u00eb faktin se dashja n\u00eb rastin konkret \u00ebsht\u00eb element i vet vepr\u00ebs penale, nga se k\u00ebto vepra penale kryhen vet\u00ebm me dashje, andaj kolegji nuk akcepton k\u00ebt\u00eb rrethan\u00eb si r\u00ebnduese nga se do t\u00eb konsistonte n\u00eb dyfishim t\u00eb rrethanave dhe at\u00eb vet elementi i vepr\u00ebs penale do t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohej edhe si rrethan\u00eb r\u00ebnduese\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kolegji i Apelit nuk pranon pretendimin e mbrojt\u00ebsve t\u00eb t\u00eb akuzuarve se nuk jan\u00eb vler\u00ebsuar drejt rrethanat leht\u00ebsuese p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojturit e tyre dhe at\u00eb se t\u00eb akuzuarit kan\u00eb pranuar faj\u00ebsin\u00eb, pendimin e shprehur p\u00ebr veprat e kryera, rrethanat familjare se t\u00eb akuzuarit jan\u00eb mbajt\u00ebs t\u00eb familjeve t\u00eb tyre, dhe premtimin se n\u00eb t\u00eb ardhmen nuk do t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb vepra penale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sipas Apelit, k\u00ebto rrethana jan\u00eb shqyrtuar nga shkalla e par\u00eb, andaj pretendimi i till\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb i pabazuar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPrandaj, kjo Gjykat\u00eb vler\u00ebson se d\u00ebnimet e shqiptuara ndaj t\u00eb akuzuarve nga ana e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs se par\u00eb jan\u00eb n\u00eb harmoni me intensitetin e rrezikshm\u00ebris\u00eb shoq\u00ebrore t\u00eb veprave t\u00eb kryera penale dhe shkall\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsis\u00eb penale t\u00eb akuzuarve si ekzekutor, dhe me intensitetin e rrezikimit apo pasojave t\u00eb shkaktuara dhe se me to do t\u00eb mund t\u00eb parandalohen t\u00eb akuzuarit nga kryerja e veprave penale n\u00eb t\u00eb ardhmen, si dhe do t\u00eb parandalohen personat tjer\u00eb nga kryerja e veprave penale\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb fund.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gjykata e Apelit i ka refuzuar si t\u00eb pabazuara ankesat e mbrojt\u00ebsve t\u00eb t\u00eb akuzuarve n\u00eb rastin \u201cSubvencionet 4\u201d, Gjon Musolli dhe Halit Berisha, nd\u00ebrsa v\u00ebrtetoi\u00a0aktgjykimin e Gjykat\u00ebs Themelore n\u00eb Prishtin\u00eb, me t\u00eb cilin dy t\u00eb akuzuarit u d\u00ebnuan (s\u00eb bashku) me d\u00ebnim unik prej 3 vjet e gjysm\u00eb burgim dhe 7 mij\u00eb euro gjob\u00eb. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2006,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-lajme"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2005"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2005\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2007,"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2005\/revisions\/2007"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2006"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rrjeti.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}