A woman seeking protection, a court order that envisioned her return home, and a police procession documenting that she was not considered safe in that apartment. This is the shocking chronology derived from official documents provided by the Signal newspaper, just three days before the brutal murder of Arlinda Sillaj Zekiaj in Vitomirica in Pec.

The signal newspaper has exclusively secured the Kosovo Police Processor No. 202 6 – DA-SH-SH-1453, dated October 22, 2026, which highlights the way institutions had dealt with the victim’s complaints, the request for the removal of unauthorized persons from home and claims of deportation.

The document reveals that Arlinda had sought police intervention, as on the joint property with former husband Jeton Sylaj was staying his family, for whom she claimed they had no authorization.

At the same time, he had raised concern that the judicial decision regarding child care had not been carried out.

But what especially attracts attention is how the two issues that were addressed directly mattered to her safety.

To evacuate family members, he was instructed to take the civil course

According to the report, after interviewing the parties and consulting the State Prosecutor, Arlinda had been instructed that for those staying inside the house, the court was addressed in civil disputes.

That was at a time when the victim already had a defense order issued by the Constitutional Court in Pec on October 16, 2026.

With that decision, the court had specifically ordered that the former husband allow Arlinda to return and exploit the common house in Vitomirica.

Thus, the victim was not just seeking a common solution to property conflict. She was seeking to live in a house where her return and attitude were in advance expressly in a protective decision.

However, it remains to be clarified whether the judicial order authorized the removal of third persons and what measures could be taken to ensure Arlinda’s safety during his execution.

For the canyon, they asked for the camera footage.

Another part of the record raises questions about the treatment of cannomic claims.

The document notes that, after consulting the Prosecution, no criminal and cannoal were considered to be consumed, while the parties expected the security camera video recordings.

This raises an important question: Were sufficient action to verify the victim’s claims and provide evidence, or was the practical burden of obtaining recordings left to parties involved in the conflict?

The procedure does not explain whether police had asked for their own images, whether they were preserved or later their initial assessment of the cans had been changed.

These circumstances take on special importance after Arlinda’s murder.

The prosecution had estimated that her stay at home was not safe

One of the most significant parts of the document relates to what happened on the evening of October 22nd.

Around 21:27, police had escorted Arlinda to her home in Vitomirica, but the court door was closed.

The ex-husband, Sylaj, had refused to open it, arguing that the judicial act did not specifically force him to do so.

After that opposition, Arlinda had returned to the Police Station in Pec.

She was accompanied by her former husband and mother, while other institutional consultations had been held for the situation.

It was here that the record records that because of the established circumstances and the presence of the former husband’s family, the prosecution had estimated that the victim’s safety was paramount and that it was not safe for her to stay in that house.

As a solution to that night, Arlinda was proposed to stay with her brothers.

The latter had gone to the station and had offered to take their sister to their home.

Finally, with her understanding and that of her family, Arlinda had fled to the village of Radac, Pec.

Six days after the defense order, she still faced obstacles to return home

The Constitutional Court Act in Pec of 16 October had established some concrete obligations to the former husband.

He had been barred from drawing close to decided distances, exercising physical and psychological violence, threatening and hindering Arlinda’s movement.

The court had ordered her return to the common house and had temporarily entrusted her child with care.

The decision was to enter into force immediately, that the complaint did not prevent the execution and that the execution belonged to the Kosovo Police.

However, on October 22, six days after its release, the chip records that Arlinda’s return home had run into opposition.

This is one of the main issues requiring investigation, which parts of the decision were executed, which were not, and why?

Three days later, Arlinda was killed

On October 25, Arlinda had returned to the Péja Police Station, where she was interviewed in connection with a family violence case.

By 20:58 the police patrol had sent him home.

About ten minutes later, police had received information about the murder.

Arlinda Sylaj Zekiaj was found without life in the bedroom, while, according to initial doubts, her brother-in-law, Albert Sylaj, had hit her with an axe in her head.

Investigations are under way, while the victim’s husband, Sylaj, has been detained for 48 hours after the interview. His ban and eventual responsibility must be clarified by competent organs.

The documents provided by the signal already raise a question that cannot be overlooked: What changed between October 22nd and 25 that the woman on whom the threat of staying at home had been recorded returned to that house the night she was killed?

Was a new risk assessment realized? Were the judicial arrangements executed? Were the people whose presence had been complained about? Were the camera footage secured and verified claims?

The answers require review of all documentation and actions undertaken by police, Prosecution and other institutions.

The process does not automatically prove that any official committed a criminal offense or that his actions have caused the murder.

However, it proves something that requires institutional answers, just three days before Arlinda’s life was taken away, authorities had documented concrete concerns about her safety and had considered her stay at home uncertain.

Arlinda no longer lives to seek the implementation of her decisions and protection of her rights.

Now it remains to be explained whether the state had fulfilled all its obligations to it before it was too late.

Source Layer: Signal