But unlike the stances of special prosecutor Habibe Salihu and Special Department Judge Vesel Ismajli, a former Supreme Court chairman, at the same time university professor, Feyzulla Hasani.
Hasan in an interview for the show “Dosja” has stressed that this agreement does not find support in the law.
Well in no way can a dimension that has a clean criminal character be included in a plea agreement, as is done in the concrete case you’re referring to. The prosecution has in no way been able to condition the injured, pay back the debt if you want to take the property back, because taking those properties was illegal, arbitrary action that has criminal character and is absolutely impossible, and I am surprised how it has been possible for such a formulation to exist in agreement between the prosecutor and the party. The worse the court has accepted this agreement for the fact that even the court can accept the agreement only when it is legal. There’s no way when the deal is illegal, in any way when that deal is flawed in fact and law.
On the other hand, Professor Hasani explains the court has had to annul the legal acts through which the defendant has acquired the victims’ property, and the same go back to them.
While, the share of the debt to the fileman directed in civil conflicts.
Always when the defendant is found guilty of nothing without being part of the court agreement, there is legal obligation to annul all legal affairs that have been done through illegal acts. So the court had to declare him guilty, judge him and at the same time cancel the base on which he wore the property in his name and restore it to the injured. Not to take it to civilians, not to take it to civilians, but the court has been legally obliged that, in addition to the sentence stated by the defendant, the other dimension has had to cancel all legal affairs related to carrying these properties to the hawk and order them to return. And on the matter of damage, he can lead civil conflict, think about it, whether court or not, that if you’re going to have your property back, you’re going to take the property back, you’re going to make up for the damage because only the court and prosecutors in the concrete case have legitimized an illegal act that’s not possible. I’m saying I’m wondering how it’s possible, until I saw for myself that I believed this could happen in practice.
Hasan says that in this direction, the judge and prosecutor should be treated for responsibility of at least the disciplinary.
Not all judges or all prosecutors are largely familiar with the case sometimes make mistakes, make negligence, make such concessions. But any intentional action certainly attracts responsibility for the owners of these functions and judges prosecutors, at least disciplinary responsibilities, because it’s not possible, I told you, it’s not possible, it’s rational for the court to condition that you get the property back through the blame, you want to pay your debt to the defendant in any better. No matter why he has agreed, no matter why he is present, neither the court nor the court had to enter this dimension for an illegal act, for an act that was the object of the criminal case. Even now you can make sure you get this. So if you want to return property that was illegally taken from you and that’s why it was answered and prosecuted, you have to pay the debt or you can’t go back. So for me I couldn’t believe you could see such a deal as a man who didn’t spend the entire career in the judicial system. Maybe 40 years I’ve been dealing with these issues. I didn’t believe this could happen.
The signal where the truth speaks before the news!
Source Layer: Signal
