A cow enters the court of the Court, and the owner ends up in custody. An accident with a dead man ends with an indictment rejected because of procedural shortcomings. In both cases the name of the same prosecutor, Blerim Igrista, appears.
Hashim Miftar’s 48-hour detention decision, after his cow entered the Court Court’s Court Court in Gracanica, has turned its attention to several earlier files by Pristina Constitutional Prosecutor’s Prosecutor.
The last case is especially unusual. The judge who had reported the incident had stated that the damage to greenery was minimal and that police had been called to draw attention to the owner of the animal.
However, Igrista ordered his ban for 48 hours.
Following signal reports and public reactions, the prosecution confirmed that the ban had been suspended and Miftari was released in regular procedure.
But this is not the only Igrist file that has raised questions about his decision making.
A Fatal Accident and Actacup that did not survive judicial control
In August 2023, a traffic accident at the entrance of Pristina claimed the life of a passenger.
According to the indictment set up by Igrista, the driver was suspected to have moved 136 miles [166 km] an hour to an area where the speed allowed was 40 miles per hour per hour.
However, the case failed to pass into judicial examination on the basis of the prosecution.
The Constitutional Court in Pristina dropped the indictment on October 1st 2025, while the Court of Appeals confirmed the verdict on December 3rd.
The reason was procedural. The prosecutor had not questioned the defendant before the indictment was filed, though it was mandatory according to the court’s assessment.
Even more problematic is the conclusion reported by Apel that the prosecution had not responded to the Constitutional Court’s request to fulfill the indictment.
These findings were reported by KA LLXO, referring to the Court of Appeals ruling.
Aktakuza in February decision to launch investigation in March
Another reported case in 2023 relates to an indictment of forest theft.
According to the report, Igrishta had filed the indictment on February 15th, while the decision to start the investigation was made on March 21st.
The defence had opposed this order of actions, while the prosecution had reasoned with a technical error in the legal qualifications of the work.
The court had returned the indictment for fulfillment. The case had prompted debate on respecting procedures that should precede the prosecution’s rise.
Another 81-year-old in the midst of reported cases
In public reports on Igristra, a request for the detention of an 81-year-old is also found in a case related to school opening requirements.
However, without full judicial decision and demand reasoning, this case cannot finally be assessed in terms of legitimacy.
Discipline procedure and accountability questions
In February 2026 it was reported that disciplinary procedure had been initiated regarding treatment of the fatal accident file.
The final result of this procedure has not been publicly confirmed in considered sources.
Now, after Gracanica’s case, questions are asked that require institutional answers.
Over what concrete circumstances has the cow’s owner’s ban been deemed necessary? What was the procedural danger intended to prevent? How is the proportionality of the measure assessed in proportion to the minimum damage reported?
And what conclusion has the report of the fatal accident file received, and have measures been taken to prevent repeated procedural shortcomings?
The cow’s case may seem unusual, but the question you raise is serious. Is the prosecutorial power being exercised by the care and responsibility required for civil freedom?
That is the question the Kosovo Prosecutor and Prosecutorial Council must provide controversial answers.
Reports of shortcomings in previous files do not represent the prosecution’s disciplinary or criminal responsibility. Such appreciation belongs to competent organs.
The signal where the truth speaks before the news!
Source Layer: Signal
