How little is citizen freedom for the Constitutional Prosecutor in Pristina worth? A cow enters the Courtyard in Gracanica, damages a little green, and its owner ends in a 48-hour ban. A decision that raises serious concerns about how a prosecutor has exercised power to deprive one of freedom of an incident that the complainer himself described as trivial to the damage, the Signal newspaper teaches.

The event took place on Friday, November 13th, at the branch yard of the Foundation Court in Gracanica.

About 4: 00 p.m., police have reported that a cow had entered the courtroom.

At the scene, police officials have met Judge Sinisa Borisavljevic and animal owner Hashim Miftari (59), from Hayvalia.

Both have been escorted to the Police Station in Gracanica to issue statements.

During the interview, the judge has stated that security officials had removed the animals from the courtyard three to four times during that day and that similar cases had occurred before.

In fact, according to his statement, about 15 goats had entered the court earlier. The judge has also declared he will hand over the police footage of the security cameras.

He has clarified that the damage to the garden’s greenery was minimal and that the purpose of the police call was only to get the owner’s attention to animals.

On the other hand, Miftari, in the voluntary statement, has stated that the cow had lost them and that this was the first time she had entered the Court Court Court.

However, the Pristina Constitutional Prosecutor for Prosecutorship has ordered that the 59-year-old be banned for 48 hours.

Not just interviewing. Not only to be investigated in regular procedure. To be deprived of freedom.

Cases for criminal work have been initiated against him — “Evertification or damage to wealth,” according to Article 321 of the Penal Code.

After the decision to stop, Miftar was sent to keep it.

But doubt of damaging a green space and the necessity of restraining a citizen is two completely different issues.

What danger did Hashim Miftari pose that could not be treated without putting him under ban? Did he risk escaping? Did it affect the witnesses? Eliminate evidence of the bar damage in the Court Court?

These aren’t funny questions. They are questions about a decision that directly affects one of the most basic human rights.

In police information provided by the signal, no concrete reason is given for the necessity of the 48-hour ban.

The founding prosecutor in Pristina must explain this decision. Not only because a criminal case has been initiated but why a citizen has been deprived of freedom for such an incident.

The chief prosecutor of this institution should seek to clarify the circumstances and reasoning of the decision, while competent bodies should assess whether legal requirements for the ban have been respected.

A prosecutor has a right and a duty to prosecute criminal acts. But the ability to limit freedom is neither a personal privilege nor a means to demonstrate authority.

It is power to be exercised with the highest responsibility, for freedom, dignity, and life are behind any decision to ban.

If this decision is not based on concrete and legitimate reasons, it cannot be treated as an ordinary procedural episode. It requires institutional and responsibility consideration.

A cow can harm a judge’s bar. But a prosecutor who deprives a citizen of freedom for no legitimate reason damages something far more serious: belief in justice itself.

Note: The suspected person enjoys the presumption of innocence and is considered innocent until his guiltyness is proven by judicial decision of form.

Source Layer: Signal