Republika e KosovësRepublika Kosova-Republic of Kosovo

Qeveria –Vlada-Government

Ministria e Drejtësië –Ministarstvo Pravde –Ministry of Justice

May 2008Sahit Shala, MOJ

REPORTON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

OFFICES OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOSOVAFOR THE YEAR 2007

1

List of abbreviations:

SCM -System of Case Management

CE -Council of Europe

PCPP -Provisional Code of Penal Procedure

PPCK -Provisional Penal Code of Kosova

KPLJ -Kosova Penal Law for Juveniles

MP -Municipal Prosecutor

MPPO -Municipal Public Prosecutor Office

DPO -District Prosecutor Office

DPPO - District Public Prosecutor Office

ORP -Office of Republican Prosecutor

RPPOK -Republican Public Prosecutor Office of Kosova

KSPO - Kosova Special Prosecutor Office

KJC -Kosova Judicial Council

MIA -Ministry of Internal Affairs

MOJ -Ministry of Justice

UNMIK -Interim Administration of United Nations, Mission in Kosova

2

Introduction

Pursuant to the Provisional Code of Penal Procedure of the Republic of Kosova, the Public Prosecutor Office is an independent body responsible for investigation of penal acts, for exercising penal procedure against the persons suspected for committing penal acts that are prosecuted officially or with the proposal of the aggrieved party, for monitoring the work of Judicial Police during investigation of the suspicious persons for commitment of penal acts and for collection of data and information for initiation of the penal procedure.The Public Prosecutor Office also carries other duties prescribed by law.Some of the tasks of Public Prosecutor Offices, based on the law are performed by the Special Prosecutor Office of Kosova, whose task is to fight criminality.The Public Prosecutor Offices as independent bodies ground their operation on the principle of independence against all participants in the penal procedure and other state bodies.The function of the Public Prosecutor Office is to be exercised in an unbiased and objective approach.Public Prosecutor Offices in the Republic of Kosova function in three levels:

1) Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices – there exist 7 prosecutor offices,2) District Public Prosecutor Offices – there exist 5 prosecutor offices,3) Public Prosecutor Office of Kosova and

Special Prosecutor Office of Kosova which will have competence over all territory of the Republic of Kosova.

Organization of Public Prosecutor Offices is as in the scheme given below:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF KOSOVA

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF KOSOVA

Taking into account the statistical data, Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova will report every month to the Statistical and Analytical Office within the Ministry of Justice.The statistical data are essential for reflecting and administration of the work of Public Prosecutor Offices.

Public Prosecutor Offices will report in regard with:-Mature perpetrators of penal acts,-Juvenile perpetrators of penal acts,-Unknown perpetrators of penal acts,

District P.P. Gjilan

District P.P. Prishtina

District P.P. Prizren

District P.P. Peja

District P.P. Mitrovica

Municipal P.P. Prishtina

Municipal P.P. Prizren

Municipal P.P. Peja

Municipal P.P. Mitrovica

Municipal P.P. Gjilan

Municipal P.P. Ferizaj

Municipal P.P. Gjakova

3

-Different penal cases,-Perpetrators of economic offences, and-Penal cases in the procedure of second instance.For compilation of the annual report for the year 2007, the Statistics Office has had some obstructions during reporting activity by the Public Prosecutor Offices.The main obstruction has been that the Public Prosecutor Offices, which since from entering into force of the Penal Codes of Kosova (April 2004), have not had adequate registers for unique evidences of criminal charges, so that also the reports have not been unique.Since 1 January 2008, the office of Statistics and Analytics has solved some of the obstruction problems mentioned above by drafting all necessary registers for Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova, and as a result of this, in the future the reporting work from the side of the prosecutor offices will not be as problematic as it has been till recently.Further more, since month of February 2008, the work of the prosecutors is monitored for each prosecutor one by one, by focusing on quantity and quality of their work.During compilation of this report, we will mainly focus on the work of Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices, District Prosecutor Offices Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova, whereas, for the Kosova Special Prosecutor Office we do not have information.In the report there will be analysed the data related to prosecutor offices as per penal charges, according to persons and according to the penal acts committed.

Work of Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova in 2007

During 2007, all Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova have received 51495 penal charges.

From the number of penal charges (cases) received for solving:- 42759 or 83,0 % of cases belong to Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices;- 6688 or 13,0 % of cases belong to District Public Prosecutor Offices and - 2048 or 4,0 % of cases belong to Public Prosecutor Office of Kosova.

According to the structure given above, it is indicated that 83,0 % of the cases belong to Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices and in the best way it is seen in the graphical reflection below:

4

Structure of penal charges (cases) received to be processed during 2007, (51495) is as follows:

- 19686 or 38,2 % are penal charges of adult-mature perpetrators of penal acts,

- 2203 or 4,3% are penal charges of juvenile perpetrators of penal acts,- 15403 or 29,9% are penal charges of unknown perpetrators of penal acts,- 11014 or 21,3 % are different penal cases,- 1141 or 2,2% are penal cases of second instance, and - 2048 or 4,0 % are penal cases of Public Prosecutor Office of Kosova.

From the diagram above we see that the higher number of penal charges (cases)belongs to the penal perpetrators of mature age with about (38,2%). The penal charges of unknown perpetrators of penal acts participate in the total number of penal charges with 29,9 %.

Public Prosecutor Office ofKosova 4%

District Prosecutor Officest 13%

Municipal Prosec. 83%

123

0

10

20

30

40

38.2% 4.3% 29.9% 21.3% 2.2% 4.0%

Mature Perpetrator of P.A.

Juvenile PerpetratorOf Penal act

Unknown perpetratorOf penal act

DifferentPenalcases

Penal cases of second Instance

Cases ofP.P. of Kosova

5

Municipal Prosecutor Offices

Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices during 2007 have received for processing in total 42759 penal charges – cases.The structure of the penal charges – cases is as in the following:

- 7340 or 40,6 % are penal charges of adult-mature perpetrators of penal acts,- 2018 or 4,7 % are penal charges of juvenile perpetrators of penal acts,- 14480 or 33,8 % are penal charges of unknown perpetrators of penal acts,

and - 8921 or 20.9 % are different penal cases.

The structure of the penal charges – cases is best seen through the diagram below:

In 2007, the number of penal charges – cases is increased compared to 2006 for15,5%. It is concerning the fact that the highest increase of penal charges in 2007 compared to that of 2006 is in the group of penal charges-cases of juvenile perpetrators with 19,6%, the unknown perpetrators of penal acts had an increase of 13,1%, whereas the mature-adult perpetrators of penal acts have had an increase of 13,0 %.Penal charges-cases of juvenile perpetrators of penal acts have a tendency of increasing, because when comparing the number of received cases for processing during 2007 with the juvenile perpetrators me of penal acts in the year 2005, then this increase is two times more 44,0 %.

Year 2006 Year 2007- Penal charges of adult-mature perpetrators 15343 17340- Penal charges of juvenile perpetrators of penal acts 1687 2018- Penal charges of unknown perpetrators of penal acts 12802 14480- Different penal cases 7188 8921Total 37020 42759Comparison of year 2006 with year 2007 is best seen in the diagram as follows:

40,6 % 4,7 % 33,8 % 20,9 %0

10

20

30

40

50

Mature Perpetrator of P.A

Juvenile PerpetratorOf Penal act

Unknown perpetratorOf penal act Different

Penalcases

6

DISTRICT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICES

During year 2007, District Public Prosecutor Offices have received for processing 6688 penal charges-cases. The structure of penal charges-cases received for processing is as follows:

- 2346 or 35,1 % are penal charges of adult-mature perpetrators of penal acts,- 185 or 2,8 % are penal charges of juvenile perpetrators of penal acts,- 923 or 13,8 % are penal charges of unknown perpetrators of penal acts,- 2093 or 31,3 % are different penal cases, and - 1141 or 17,1% are penal cases in the procedure of second instance.

From the structure of the cases it is seen that the higher number of penal charges-cases is mainly related to mature perpetrators of penal acts 35,1 %, also the number of charges in cases where the perpetrators are unknown is also large 13,8 %, whereas other cases like different penal cases 31,3 % and penal cases in the procedure of the second instance do not show to have any problem comparing with the weight or importance that these penal cases mentioned above have. Otherwise, in general in 2007 the number of penal charges of the District Public Prosecutor Offices compared to year 2006 is lower for about 5,7 %. A higher increase is noticed in charges where perpetrators of penal acts were unknown persons for 19,1 %, also, an increase was noticed at the group of juvenile perpetrators of penal acts with 7,6.

Year 2007 compared to year 2006

Year 2006 Year 2007 + or -- Penal charges of mature perpetrators 2410 2346 - 64 or - 26,6 %- Penal charges of juvenile perpetrators 172 185 + 13 or + 7,6 %- Penal charges of unknown perpetrators 775 923 +148 or + 19,1 %- Different penal cases 2000 2093 + 93 or + 4,6 %- Penal cases in second instance procedure 1734 1141 -593 or - 34,2 %Total 7091 6688 - 403 or - 5,7 %Comparing 2006 with the year 2007 is best seen at the diagram:

Mature Perpetrator of P.A

Unknown perpetratorOf penal act

Juvenile PerpetratorOf Penal act

DifferentPenalcases

7

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA

During 2007, Public Prosecutor Office of Kosova has received for processing 2048cases.The structure of the received cases is given below:

- Appeals on judgments (PPA) 621 or 30,3 %,- Appeals on judgments for juveniles (PPM) 10 or 0,5%,- Detention (PPP) 313 or 15,3%,- Different penal cases (PPN) 106 or 5,2%,- Civil, reviewing (CRK) 388 or 18,9%,- Defence of legality (all fields) 288 or 14,1 %,- Requests for mitigation (PPZ) 162 or 7,9 % and - Administrative 160 or 7,8%.

In 2007 compared to year 2006, Public Prosecutor Office of Kosova has received for processing 19 or 0,9 % case more than in 2006.From the received cases during 2007, in the end of the year there have remained unsolved 14 cases, from them 13 unsolved cases are with international prosecutor.

REPORT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICES – AS PER PENAL CHARGES

Workload of prosecutors with penal charges

Municipal Prosecutor Offices during 2007, have received for processing 22272 penal charges, taking into account also the penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts estimated in relation with penal charges for mature perpetrators 8:1 anddifferent penal cases estimated in relation with penal charges 8:1.During the reporting period, Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova, in average have received for processing 518 penal charges for every prosecutor.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2410

Mature PerpetratorsOf P.A.

Juvenile PerpetratorsOf P.A.

Unknownperpetrators

DifferentPenal Cases

Penal Cases inProcedure in Second instance

Year

Year 2007

2346172

185775

9232000

20931734

1141

8

Municipal Public Prosecutor Office of Gjakova, had received 173 penal charges less than the average of Kosova, MPPO of Ferizaj for 121 penal charges has been under the average of Kosova and MPPO of Gjilan for 12 penal charges was under the average of Kosova.The most loaded Municipal Public Prosecutor Office with penal charges has been the Municipal Public Prosecutor Office of Prizren with 137 cases over the average of Kosova, MPPO of Mitrovica has received 80 cases more than Kosova average, MPPO of Peja 26 penal charges over the average of Kosova and MPPO of Prishtina 3 penal charges more than the average of Kosova.During the reporting period, District Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova have received in average 97 penal charges for every prosecutor.All DPPO-s during this period have been loaded with received penal charges under the average of Kosova, except District Public Prosecutor Office of Prishtina which had received 45 penal charges over the average for Kosova, other DPPO-s have received cases approximately very close to the Kosova average, except DPPO of Prizren which had received 39 penal charges under Kosova average. “Human Dynamics“ – The Section for Public Counselling, in 2007 has determined the annual norm of 250 penal charges which are to be solved by a prosecutor of MPPO within a calendar year, whereas for the District Public Prosecutor Offices thenorm was determined in 60 penal charges for one prosecutor during a calendar year.Based on the norms, 250 penal charges for MPPO and 60 penal charges for DPPO-s, then to be more correct the MPPO-s must have had 89 prosecutors, respectively DPPO-s must have had 55 prosecutors.Based on the aforementioned, it can be found that the MPPO-s and DPPO-s are overloaded with penal charges.In year 2007 compared to year 2006, the penal charges for mature perpetrators are increased for 855 or 31,4 % of penal charges.Workload of Municipal and District Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova in a diagram looks as below:

9

Workload of prosecutors with penal charges -Tab. 1 Status until on 31/12/2007

Workload of prosecutors with penal charges

NAME OF PROSECUTOR OFFICE No. of prosecutors me 31/12/2007-

Workload of Prosecutors with penal charges for year 2007-

Number of penal charges for 1 prosecutor during year 2007-

A 1 2 3

Municipal Prosecutor Offices

" Gjilan 6 3036 506 " Prizren 6 3932 655 " Peja 5 2718 544 " Gjakova 3 1036 345 " Prishtina 13 6773 521 " Ferizaj 6 2384 397 " Mitrovica 4 2393 598TOTAL 43 22272 518District Prosecutor Offices

" Gjilan 4 352 88 " Prizren 7 407 58 " Peja 7 602 86 " Prishtina 10 1424 142 " Mitrovica 6 512 85TOTAL 34 3297 97Public Prosecutor Office of Kosova 6TOTAL 83

1) Penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts and different penal cases are estimated in relation with penal charges for mature perpetrators 1:8

2) Penal cases of second instance are estimated in relation with penal charges of DPPO-s 1:3

10

Workload of Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices Workload of District Public Prosecutor Offices

Efficiency of prosecutors on solving the penal charges

Municipal Prosecutor Offices during 2007 have solved 21083 penal charges taking into account also the penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts estimated in relation with penal charges for mature perpetrators 8:1 and different penal cases estimated in relation with penal charges 8:1.During the reporting period, Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova, in average have solved 518 penal charges for every prosecutor.All prosecutor offices during the reporting period have solved penal charges more than the average of Republic of Kosova (490), except the Municipal Public Prosecutor Office in Gjakova which is much lower than the average of Kosova in regard of efficiency (300) penal charges for one prosecutor or 190 penal charges under the average for Kosova, also the Municipal Public Prosecutor Office of Ferizajis under the average of Republic of Kosova for 92 penal charges.The most efficient prosecutor office in the reporting period has been the Municipal Public Prosecutor Office of Prizren with 585 penal charges for one prosecutor, the Municipal Public Prosecutor Office of Peja with 528 penal charges per prosecutor, the MPPO of Prishtina 510 penal charges per prosecutor and MPPO of Gjilan with 499 penal charges per prosecutor.Based on the determined norm by “Human Dynamics“ – Section of Public Counselling, 250 penal charges for MPPO Prosecutors respectively 60 penal charges for prosecutors of DPPO-s, we can say that all prosecutor offices have been effective on solving penal charges.As for DPPO-s, in average for year, each prosecutor has solved in average 88 penal charges. The most effective prosecutor office for the reporting period has been the DPPO of Prishtina with 126 penal charges for each prosecutor, respectively 38 penal charges was over the average of the Republic of Kosova.Other DPPO-s have been under the average of the Republic of Kosova, but we must specify the Public Prosecutor Office of Prizren which in average has solved 56 penal charges per prosecutor, and this norm according to “Human Dynamics” is 60 penal charges per prosecutor, and under the norm of Republic of Kosova is for 88,6 penal charges for each prosecutor. In general, except DPPOin Prizren, other DPPO-s have been effective on solving penal charges as the norm of solving has been above the norm of 60 penal charges per prosecutor.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

506 655 544 345 521 397 598 518

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

MPPOGjilan

MPPO PrizrenMPPO Peja

MPPOGjakovë

MPPOPrishtina

MPPOFerizaj

Average ofKosova

MPPOMitrovica

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

88 58 86 142 85 97

1

2

3

4

5

6

DPPOGjilan

DPPOPrizren

DPPOPeja

DPPOPrishtina

DPPOMitrovica

Average ofKosova

11

Efficiency of the Prosecutors on solving the penal charges Tab. 2 STATUS ON 31/12/2007

Efficiency of the Prosecutors on solving the penal charges

NAME OF PROSECUTOR OFFICE

No. of prosecutors on 31/12/2007

Efficiency of Prosecutors on solving penal charges for the year 2007

Solving of penal charges for 1 prosecutor in the year 2007

A 1 2 3

Municipal Prosecutor Offices

" Gjilan 6 2997 499,5

" Prizren 6 3511 585,2

" Peja 5 2641 528,0

" Gjakova 3 902 300,7

" Prishtina 13 6632 510,2

" Ferizaj 6 2393 398,8

" Mitrovica 4 2007 501,8

TOTAL 43 21083 490,3

District Prosecutor Offices " Gjilan 4 342 85,5

" Prizren 7 394 56,3

" Peja 7 584 83,4

" Prishtina 10 1260 126

" Mitrovica 6 432 72

TOTAL 34 3012 88,6

Public Prosec. Office of Kosova 6

TOTAL 831) 1) Penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts and different penal cases are

estimated in relation with penal charges for mature perpetrators 1:8.2) Penal cases of second instance are estimated in relation with penal charges of DPPO-s 1:3

Efficiency of Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices Efficiency of Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

585 300 510 398 501 490499 528

MPPOGjilan

MPPOPrizren MPPO

Peja

MPPOGjakova

MPPOPrishtina

MPPOFerizaj

MPPOMitrovica

Average forKosova

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

85 56 83 126 72 88

DPPOGjilan

DPPOPrizren

DPPOPeja

DPPOPrishtina

DPPOMitrovica

Average forKosova

12

Distribution of penal charges for mature perpetrators of penal acts

During 2007, in the Republic of Kosova, in every one hundred thousand inhabitants there are received 815 penal charges for mature perpetrators of penal acts.The highest number of penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants was registered in the MPPO of Gjilan 1120 penal charges or 305 penal charges over the average for Kosova, the MPPO of Ferizaj has received 1005 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants or 190 penal charges over the average for Kosova and MPPO of Prizren had received 813 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants or 2 penal charges under the average of Kosova.

Municipal Public Prosecutor Office of Gjakova in the reporting period has received the lowest number of penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants, 651 penal charges or 164 penal charges under the average of the Republic of Kosova, the MPPO in Mitrovica has received 698 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants or 117 penal charges under the average for Kosova, th MPPO of Prishtina has received 759 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants or56 penal charges under the average for Kosova and MPPO in Peja has received 777 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants or 38 penal charges under the average of Kosova.

The reason why MPPO in Gjilan and Ferizaj have higher number of penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants stands for the fact that the territory for which are responsible these prosecutor offices include also the border zones, and in this territory there are several border points.

During the reporting period in the Republic of Kosova for every one hundred thousand inhabitants there are received 110 penal charges for mature perpetrators under the competence of DPPO-s.The highest number of penal charges for mature perpetrators of penal acts is registered in the DPPO of Mitrovica – 141 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants, the DPPO in Gjilan has received 116 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants, whereas the DPPO of Peja and Prishtina have received each 114 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants.District Public Prosecutor Office in Prizren has received the lowest number of penal charges, 74 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants.

It must be mentioned that, even though at first sight at some regions of Republic of Kosova (Gjilan, Ferizaj) the level of criminality compared to the level of criminality at some neighbour countries, in the Republic of Kosova the level of criminality is lower, because for example in the Republic of Slovenia in 2003 for one hundred thousand inhabitants there had 3869 penal charges, Croatia had received for processing 2177 penal charges, Hungary 4144 penal charges, etc.

Distribution of penal charges for mature perpetrators of penal cases in one hundred thousand inhabitants in a diagram looks as follows:

13

Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices District Public Prosecutor Offices

Distribution of penal charges for juvenile perpetrators of penal acts

Municipal Prosecutor Offices in 2007 in level of Republic of Kosova have received for processing 95 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants. The highest number of penal charges for juvenile penal charges of penal acts was received in MPPO of Gjilan 177 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants or 82 penal charges over the average of the Republic of Kosova, MPPO of Ferizaj has received 148 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants or 53 penal charges over the average of Republic of Kosova, MPPO of Gjakova has received 111 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants or 16 penal charges over the average of Kosova and MPPO in Mitrovica has received 97 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants.The Municipal Public Prosecutor Office in Peja has received the lowest number of penal charges for juvenile perpetrators of penal acts – 55 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants, MPPO of Prishtina has received 75 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants and the MPPO of Prizren 82 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants.Based on the data, the MPPO of Gjilan has received two times more penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants (177) in comparison with the MPPO of Prishtina (75) or three times more than penal charges received by Peja MPPO (55).Also the MPPO of Ferizaj compared to other MPPO-s has received high number of penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants (148).The above mentioned indicators show that institutions which deal with the criminality of juveniles, during their work for crime prevention, must be focused more in the regions of Gjilan and Ferizaj.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1120 813 777 651 759 1005 698 815

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

MPPOGjilan

MPPOPrizren

MPPOPeja

MPPOGjakova

MPPOPrishtina

MPPOFerizaj

MPPOMitrovica

Average forKosova

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

116 74 114 114 141 110

1

2

3

4

5

6

DPPOGjilan

DPPOPrizren

DPPOPeja

DPPOPrishtina

DPPOMitrovica

Average forKosova

14

As for penal charges for juvenile perpetrators under the competence of district in one hundred thousand inhabitants, in the level of Republic of Kosova are received 9 penal charges.The highest number of received penal charges is registered in DPPO of Mitrovica 12 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants, DPPO of Prishtina has received 10 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants and the DPPO inPeja had received 9 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants.DPPO in Prizren had received the lowest number of penal charges for juvenile perpetrators, 5 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants and DPPO in Gjilan 8 penal charges for one hundred thousand inhabitants.Distribution of penal charges for juvenile perpetrators in one hundred thousand inhabitants shown in diagram looks as below:

Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices District Public Prosecutor Offices

Distribution of penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts

In level of Republic of Kosova, during year 2007, in Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices are received 681 penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts in one hundred thousand inhabitants.The highest number of penal charges of this type are with the MPPO of Prishtina with 930 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants or 249 penal charges over the average of Republic of Kosova, the MPPO in Mitrovica has received 774 penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts in one hundred thousand inhabitants or 93 penal charges over the average of Republic of Kosova, the MPPOof Gjakova has received 715 penal charges of this type or 34 penal charges over the average.The lowest number of penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts in one hundred thousand inhabitants was registered in MPPO of Ferizaj 408 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants or 273 penal charges under the average, the MPPO in Peja had received 475 penal charges of this type or 206 penal charges under the average of Kosova, the MPPO in Prizren had received 494 penal charges of this type or 187 penal charges under the average of Republic of Kosova and

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

177 82 55 111 75 148 97 95

MPPOGjilan

MPPOPrizren

MPPOPeja

MPPOGjakova

MPPOPrishtina

MPPOFerizaj

MPPOMitrovica

Average forKosova

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

8 5 9 10 12 9

DPPOGjilan

DPPOPrizren

DPPOPeja

DPPOPrishtina

DPPOMitrovica

Average forKosova

15

MPPO in Gjilan had received 618 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants or 63 penal charges under the average of Kosova.As for penal charges of unknown perpetrators of penal acts under competences of DPPO-s, the highest number of penal charges of this type were recorded in DPPO of Mitrovica with 62 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants or 19 penal charges over the average of the Republic of Kosova which was 43 penal charges. DPPO in Prishtina during the reporting year had received 47 penal charges in one hundred thousand inhabitants or for 4 penal charges was over the average ofRepublic of Kosova, whereas DPPO-s of Peja and Gjilan had received penal charges of this type approximately like the average of Kosova.The lowest number of penal charges of unknown perpetrators of penal acts in one hundred thousand inhabitants was registered in the DPPO of Prizren, 25 penal charges or 18 penal charges under the average of Republic of Kosova.Distribution of penal charges of unknown perpetrators in one hundred thousand inhabitants is shown in the diagram below:

Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices District Public Prosecutor Offices

0

200

400

600

800

1000

618 494 475 715 930 408 774 681

MPPOGjilan

MPPOPrizren

MPPOPeja

MPPOGjakova

PPK Prishtina

MPPOFerizaj

MPPOMitrovica

Average forKosova

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

41 25 42 47 62 43

DPPOGjilan

DPPOPrizren

DPPOPeja

DPPOPrishtina

DPPOMitrovica

Average forKosova

16

Tab.3 Distribution of penal charges according to regions

1) At DPPO Peja are included also the inhabitants of Gjakova, as DPPO Peja is competent as a prosecutor office of second instance for MPPO in Gjakova.

2) At DPPO Prishtina are also included the inhabitants of Ferizaj, as DPPO Prishtina is competent as a prosecutor office of second instance for MPPO in Ferizaj.

REPORT OF PROSECUTOR OFFICES ACCORDING TO PERSONS

In 2007, Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova (Municipal and District Prosecutor Offices) have received for processing 37292 penal charges with 45508 persons(mature and juvenile perpetrators) and unknown perpetrators of penal acts.In the total number of presented persons (45508), the known perpetrators participate with 30105 persons (the mature persons participate with 59,2%, the juvenile

Nu

mb

er

of

pen

al c

harg

esF

or

mat

ure

pe

rpe

tra

tors

of

Pe

na

l act

s in

200

7

Nu

mb

er

of

pen

al c

harg

esF

or

mat

ure

pe

rpe

tra

tors

in

10

00

00 in

ha

bita

nts

Nu

mb

er

of

pen

al c

harg

es

for

juve

nile

pe

rpe

tra

tors

of

Pe

na

l act

s in

200

7

Nu

mb

er

of

pen

al c

harg

es f

or

juve

nile

pe

rpe

trat

ors

in 1

00

000

in

ha

bita

nts

Nu

mb

er

of

pen

al c

harg

es

for

unk

no

wn

pe

rpe

tra

tors

of

Pe

na

l act

s in

20

07

N

um

be

r o

f pe

na

l cha

rges

fo

r u

nkn

ow

n p

erp

etr

ato

rs in

1

00

000

inh

abi

tant

s

Nu

mb

er o

f in

hab

itan

ts

acco

rdin

g t

o e

stim

atio

ns

o

f S

tati

stic

al O

ffic

e o

f K

oso

va

1 2 3 4 5 6

MPPO-Gjilan 2422 1120 383 177 1336 618 216286

MPPO -Prizren 3223 813 324 82 1958 494 396419

MPPO -Peja 2209 777 156 55 1350 475 284341

MPPO -Gjakova 761 651 130 111 836 715 116969

MPPO -Prishtina 5073 759 501 75 6217 930 668424

MPPO -Ferizaj 1801 1005 267 148 731 408 179281

MPPO -Mitrovicë 1851 698 257 97 2052 774 264988

-Total – MPPO-s 17340 815 2018 95 14480 681 2126708

DPPO-Gjilan 251 116 18 8 88 41 216286

DPPO-Prizren 293 74 21 5 101 25 396419

DPPO-Peja 457 114 38 9 167 42 401310 1)

DPPO-Prishtina 971 114 83 10 402 47 847705 2)

DPPO-Mitrovica 374 141 33 12 165 62 264988

Total–DPPO-s 2346 110 193 9 923 43 2126708

17

perpetrators with 7,0%), whereas unknown persons participate with 15403 or 33,8 % of persons.The structure of perpetrators (persons) of penal acts is best seen in the diagram given below:

Taking into account unsolved penal charges from previous years for 4878 persons, then, in total have been in process 34983 brought penal charges (mature and juvenile persons).Nevertheless, in our circumstances the number of unknown perpetrators of penal acts in our circumstances is very high 33,8 %, in Croatia for example in 2004 the number of unknown perpetrators of penal acts was 49 % for what this number seems to be higher than in Kosova for 15,2 %.

MATURE PERPETRATORS OF PENAL ACTS – ACCORDING TO PERSONS

During 2007, Municipal and District Prosecutor Offices have had in proceeding 30903 persons of mature age who have been suspected for commitment of penal acts.From the number of applications which have been in process (30903), 4003 or 12,9 % of these applications have remained unsolved from the previous year, whereas during the reporting period there are received 26900 or 87,1 % of penal applications for processing.From the number of applications which have been in process (30903), 25352 or 82,0 % have been cases which belong to Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices, whereas 5551 or 18,0 % of cases belong to District Public Prosecutor Offices.When carrying the penal procedure, detention was given for 1679 persons.From the penal cases that have been processed by the Municipal and District Prosecutor Offices, during 2007 (30903), the prosecutors of Municipal and District Prosecutor Offices have made decisions on 24263 or 78,5 % cases whereas in the end of reporting period (31/12/2007) there have remained unsolved 6640 or 21,5 %.

The way of solving the cases (persons) during the reporting period is described below:

- 3412 or 14,8 of cases are solved with rejection of application based on the section 208 of PCPP;

- 828 or 6,0 % of cases are solved by redirecting them to right competence;- 7116 or 29,3 % of cases are solved with charge-proposal;- 5581 or 23,0 % of cases are solved with charge-proposal for giving the order

for punishment order (Municipal Prosecutor Offices);

12

3

Mature personsJuvenile persons

Unknown persons

33.8 %

7.0 % 59.2 %

18

- 3572 or 14,7 % of cases are solved with direct indictment;- 251 or 1,0 % of cases are solved in other ways.

Cases which are solved after finishing the investigation procedure (3022 or 12,4 %) have ended as given below:

- 91 or 0.4 % of cases after investigation are suspended based on the section 223 of PCPP;

- for 225 or 1,5 % of cases investigation has ceased based on section 224, paragraph 1 of PCPP;

- 3 or 0,2 % of cases are suspended, or penal prosecution has ceased, section 226 of PCPP; and

- 2093 or 8,6 % of cases after the investigation procedure, have finished with writ of indictment.

Based on the way of solving of the penal cases, the prosecutor offices have taken the following decisions:

- Rejection of penal case 3680 or 15,1 %;- Direct indictment (decision on merit) 16269 or 67,1%;- Decision after investigation procedure 2616 or 10,8%;- Solved in another manner 1698 or 7,0 % .(sending to competence and

unifying the procedures)The structure of prosecutor offices decisions are reflected in the diagram given below:

1) When case-application is sent to another prosecutor office in competence, or is sent to the court for minor offences for further procedure.2) When the penal case is united, i.e. it is done unifying of the procedure.

When comparing the number of rejections of penal cases 15,1%) in 2007 with the number of rejection of penal cases in 2006 when there were 12,7 %, it is evident that the number of rejections is increasing. Compared to the number of rejection of applications of penal cases with the countries of the region, more exactly with the number of rejections of penal cases in Croatia (33,8 %) in 2004, then we come to conclusion that the number of rejections is much smaller in Kosova than in Croatia.Rejection of penal cases occurs for the reason that in many cases citizens present penal charges even though there is no legal ground for such a thing. A reason why there happen such applications of penal charges is the non-adequate defence of rights in other institutions, respectively, not being able to realize in effective manner the rights in other manners, citizens bring penal charges by thinking that they will realize their rights for which they think they are right.

Rejection

Direct indictment

Decision after investigation

In another manner

10.8 %7.0 %

15.1 %

67.1%

19

The number of charges decided with decision on merits by the prosecutors (67,1 %) has decreased compared to year 2006 where with decision on merits were solved 70,4% of penal cases. The Republic of Croatia in 2004 with decision on merits had solved 57,7 % of penal charges.Based on these data, we see that the number of penal charges that are solved with decision on merits is still high compared to countries of the region (57,7).For penal cases decided with decision on merits, it is worth to be mentioned the proposal-indictment for giving the penalty order as prescribed by XLI of KPCPP, respectively section 476 of the same law is prescribed that “Penal acts for which is prescribed punishment with fine or imprisonment for two to three years, for what the Public Prosecutor has been informed based on reliable evidence from the penal charge, the public prosecutor can request proposal-indictment so that the court can impose the punitive order, in which to the accused there will be imposed the respective punishment without holding the court hearing“.Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices, by using the proposal-indictments with proposal to issue the punitive order, in fact it is removed s part from the workload of the high number of cases at Municipal Courts.Public Prosecutor can request through an indictment that the court imposes to the accused one or more measures (punishment with fine, ordering to stop driving vehicles, confiscation of possessions, etc.) without court imposing. At this case, if the legal ground has been fulfilled, the court with the judgment imposes the punitive order and if the accused does not have any objection, then it is closed with this procedure.Based on the research that he have done in the Municipal Court in Kamenica, which during 2007 has solved 111 cases with approval of proposition for punitive order, which meanwhile has received 23 objections, we have come to conclusion that in79,0 % of given punitive orders the objection is presented by the accused himself. During 2007 in Kosova, with indictment proposal for giving the punitive order there are solved 5581 or 26,9 % of penal cases and it comes out that 4465 charges for mature persons are solved with judging judgment without court hearing. The punitive order could have been used more if there would not be the obstructions related to the level of penal sanctions which can be imposed (fine with imprisoning and imprisonment to 3 years).In 2007, 10,8 % of penal charges are solved with investigation, whereas in 2006 with investigation are solved 11,0 % of penal cases. Based on the information it is evident that the number of penal charges solved with investigation is decreasing. In Croatia in 2004 with 8,4% of penal charges are solved through investigation.In 2007, 4,3% of penal charges are solved in other manners (unifying the procedures, sending to competences), whereas in 2006, 3,9% of penal charges are solved in this manner.Increase of the number of penal charges that are solved in other manners has happened for the reason that often the applicants of charges do not know to make the distinction in between penal charge and minor offence.Related to indictments-proposals-submitted charges (18362) from the Municipal and District Prosecutor Offices, the Municipal and District Courts have decided for (8717) cases as follows:

- 2489 or 28,5 % of persons are judged with judgment with punitive order,- 641 or 7,4 % of persons are judged with rejecting judgment,- 407 or 4,7 % of persons are judged with release judgment,

20

- 5147 or 59,0% of persons are judged with judging judgment and to- 33 or 0,4 % persons is imposed the measure of mandatory treatment.The decisions of courts put in diagram look as in the following:

1

2

3

87,5

7,44,7

When comparing the ways of making decisions related to charges-proposal-charges with countries of the region, concretely with Croatia for year 2004 where 87,1 % of charging acts are solved with judging judgments, whereas in our country 87.5% are solved with judging judgments, with rejection judgments are solved 7,4% of the charging acts whereas in Croatia 5,3%, with releasing judgment in Kosova there are closed 4,7% of cases, whereas in Croatia the number of charging acts solved in this manner is 7,6%.Related to the decisions made by the court in regard with charges-proposal-charges, the District and Municipal Prosecutor Offices have expressed their non-satisfaction with complaint against 1170 or 13,4% of court decisions.From the complaints made by prosecutor offices, 51,9% are approved by the court of second instance as grounded, whereas 48,1 % are rejected as ungrounded.Based on the number of approved complaints it can be amended the opinion that with complaints there cannot be influenced on the punitive policy, based on the data such an opinion has been changed, as the courts of second instance have approved more than half of the complaints submitted by the prosecutors.

PENAL CHARGES FOR MATURE PERSONS ACCORDING TO PENAL ACTS

During 2007, the District and Municipal Prosecutor Offices have received for processing 19686 penal charges with 26900 persons.From the received penal charges, 23172 or 86,1 % belong to Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices, whereas 3728 or 13,9 % belong to District Public Prosecutor Offices.The structure of penal charges received according to chapters of the Penal Code is as follows:- 195 or 0,7 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XIII – Penal acts

against Kosova and its’ residents.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 114 –Passing the Border Points in Unauthorized Manner, with 173 or 88,7 % of the charges,

Rejection judgments Releasing judgments

Judging judgments

21

- 204 or 0,8% of penal charges belong to the Chapter XIV – Penal acts against the international right.

The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 138 –contraband with emigrants, with 70 or 34,2 % of penal charges,Penal acts from section 139 – trafficking with human beings, with 66 or 32,3 of penal charges and penal acts from section 117 crimes against humanity, with 34 or 16,7 % of penal charges.- 3734 or 13,9 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XV – Acts against

life and body.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 153 – light body injuries, with 2964 or 79,4 % of penal charges and penal acts from section 154 – heavy body injuries with 363 or 9,7% of penal charges, whereas for the penal act from section 146 – murder, there have been suspected 137 persons or 0,5 %.- 1686 or 6.3% of penal charges belong to the Chapter XVI – Penal acts

against human freedom and rights.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 161 –threatening with 1686 or 78,6 % of penal charges, penal acts from section 160 –constraint with 189 or 11,2% of penal charges and penal acts from section 166 –inviolability of domicile with 59 or 3,5% of penal charges of this type.- 31 or 0,1% of penal charges belong to the Chapter XVII – Penal acts

against job relationship rights.From this chapter there is a very small number of penal acts, it is not for the reason of lack of such penal acts, but people hesitate to report because they risk to lose their working place.- 26 or 01% of penal charges belong to the Chapter XVIII – penal acts

against honour and authority.Also from this chapter the number of penal reporting is very low, the highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 188 – Defamation with 13 penal charges.- 180 or 0,7 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XIX – penal act

against sexual integrity.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 193 – rape, with 54 or 30,0% of penal charges, penal acts from section 198 – sexual mistreatment of persons under the age of sixteen years with 43 or 23,9% of penal charges and penal acts from section 195 – sexual assault with 39 or 21,7 % of penal charges.- 95 or 0,4 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XX – penal acts

against marriage and family.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 208 –coexistence with persons under age of sixteen years with 31 or 32,6 % of penal charges and penal acts from section 211 – mistreatment or abandonment of child, with 20 or 21,1% penal charges.- 399 or 1,5% of penal charges belong to the Chapter XXI – penal acts

against public health.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section (229-231) related to drug, with 327 or 81,9 % of penal charges.- 849 or 3,2 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XXII – penal acts

against economy.

22

The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 244 –money counterfeit, with 631 or 74,3 % of penal charges and penal acts from section233 – mala fide activity in economy, with 60 or 7,1 % of penal charges.- 8180 or 30,4 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XXIII – penal acts

against property.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 252 – theft,with 3068 or 37,5 % of penal charges, 1881 or 23,0 % belong to penal act from section 253 – aggravated theft, with 1881 or 23,0 % of penal charges and penal actsfrom section 261 – fraud, with 1070 or 13,1 % of penal charges.- 2589 or 9,6 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XXIV – penal acts

against environment, animals, plants, and facilities.Most of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 285 – theft of woods, with2174 or 84,0 % of penal charges.- 690 or 2,6 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XXV –penal acts

against general safety of people and property.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 291 –Causing general risk, with 537 or 77,8 % of penal charges and penal acts from section 292 – damaging, removing the public installations, with 92 or 13,3% of penal charges.- 2482 or 9,2% of penal charges belong to the Chapter XXVI – penal acts

against the safety of public traffic.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 297 –endangering the public traffic, with 2403 or 96,8 % of penal charges.- 219 or 0,8 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XXVII – penal acts

against administering the justice.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 306 – false reporting, with 73 or 33,3 of penal charges and penal acts from section 304 – not-reporting the penal acts, with 64 or 29,2 % of penal charges.- 4946 or 18,4 % of penal charges belong to the Chapter XXVIII –penal acts

against public order and legal acts.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 328 –withholding property, under control, in possession or using guns without authorization, with 1743 or 35,2 % of penal charges, penal acts from section 332 –faking documents, penal acts from section 334 – legalization of false content, with 556 or 11,2 % of penal charges and penal acts from section 202 – assault against official person when performing official duty, with 202 or 4,1 % of penal charges.- 395 or 1,5 % of penal charges are related with the Chapter XXIX – penal

acts against official duty.The highest number of penal acts from this chapter belong to the section 339 –abuse of official position or authorization, with 234 or 59,2 % of penal charges, penal acts from section 340 – usurping when exercising the duty, with 39 or 10,0 % of penal charges and penal acts from section 348 – faking the official duty, with 40 or10,1 % penal charges.

- 38 or 0,1 % of penal charges are related with other codes (customs code, etc).

23

JUVENILE PERPETRATORS OF PENAL ACTS – ACCORDING TO PERSONS

Juvenile are called persons in between the age 14 and 18 years old. For children under age 14 years old there is not initiated any court procedure. If a child is under the age of 14 years old at the time when penal act is committed, every court procedure that has initiated must cease immediately.For the juveniles who have not yet reached the age of 16 at the time of penal act commitment there can only be imposed the measures.The measures which can be imposed to juveniles are:- Measures of diversity, and - Educational measures.Penalizations which can be imposed to juveniles are:-Fine,-Order for work for general avail, and-Imprisonment for juveniles.During 2007, Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices and the District ones have received for processing 2203 penal charges with 3205 persons, taking into account also the number of penal charges for 875 persons who have remained unsolved at the end of the year 2006, then we find that the prosecutor offices during 2007 have had in proceeding in total 4080 penal charges.From the total number of penal charges which have been in process in Municipal and District Public Prosecutor Offices, there are solved 2417 or 59.2 %, whereas at the end of the year 2007 there have remained unsolved 1663 or 40,1% of penal charges. There are many reasons which influenced on non accomplishment of higher number of penal charges, and one of the reasons is the increase of penal charges received for solving compared to previous years.In the last years it is being increased the participation of juveniles in general criminality.In our country in 2007, participation of juveniles in general criminality was 11,1 %, whereas in 2006 this participation was 10,5%.In 2007, compared to year 2006, the number of penal charges received for solving is increased for 344 or 15,6 % of penal charges, whereas if we make this comparison with 2005, then this increase is higher for 652 penal charges or for 29,6 %. From the number of penal charges which have been processed (4080) during 2007, 3708 or 91 % of penal charges belong to Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices, whereas 372 or 9.0 % belong to District Public Prosecutor Offices.During 2007, the prosecutor offices pursuant to section 64, paragraph 2 of PLJ (Penal Law for Juveniles) have decided for detention for 112 juvenile persons.Related to penal charges for juvenile persons, which were in proceeding (4080), the prosecutors of Municipal and District Prosecutor Offices during 2007, have decided as follows:- 462 or 19.1 % of penal charges are rejected based on section 7 of PCPP,

section 38 of PLJ, section 54 of PLJ and other reasons.From the number of rejected charges (462) it must be mentioned that 101 or 21,9 %, of penal charges are rejected pursuant to section 54 of PLJ (principle of opportunity). In Croatia the principle of opportunity is used in 58,4 % of cases.- 181 or 7,5 % of penal charges are solved in other manner (transfer to

competences and unifying of procedures),

24

- 193 or 8,0 % of penal charges are solved with ceasing of procedure as per section 58 of PLJ paragraph 1, points 1 – 5 and for other reasons.

- for 99 or 4.1 % of cases prosecution is suspended based on the section 50 of PLJ, imposing the measure of diversity.

For imposing the measure of diversity, there must be fulfilled the conditions set by section 14 of PLJ, paragraph 2, and these conditions are:

1) Accepting the responsibility for the penal act by the juvenile perpetrator,2) Readiness of the juvenile for reconciliation with the party,3) Consent of the juvenile or the parent, adopting parent or the care-taker with

imposing the measure of diversity.Measures of diversity are as follows:1) Mediation in between the juvenile perpetrator and the aggrieved party,

including asking for apology by the juvenile,2) Mediation in between the juvenile and his family,3) Compensation of the damage caused to the aggrieved party through a mutual

agreement.4) Regularly attend classes at school,5) Accepting employment or vocational training in an adequate occupation

according to the skills of the juvenile,6) Accomplishing works in general avail adequate to the skills of the juvenile,7) Regular education for the traffic,8) Psychological counselling.

- 261 or 10,8 % of penal charges is proposed the disciplinary measure, such measures are:

1) Court reprimand and 2) Taking the juvenile in disciplinary centre.- 831 or 34.4 % of penal charges are finalised with proposal of measure of

additional monitoring by: 1) Parent, adopting parent or care-taker of the juvenile, 2) The other family, 3) Custodian body.- 140 or 5,8 % penal charges are finalised with proposal of institutional

educational measures which are as follows: 1) Taking the juveniles to an educational institution, 2) Taking the juveniles to an educational – correctional institution and 3) Taking the juveniles to an institution for special care.During the reporting period there did not have any proposal for penalization with fine.- 51 or 2,1% of penal charges have been finalised with proposal of order for

work on general avail,- 85 or 3,5% of penal charges have been finalised with proposal for

imprisonment for juveniles,- 114 or 4,7 % of penal charges have been finalised with proposal for imposing

the educational measure and imprisonment for juveniles,Decisions of the prosecutors in regard with penal charge according to the type of decisions and proposed sanctions are as follows:

- 655 or 27,1 % of penal charges have been finalized with rejection and closing of preparation procedure,

25

- 1331 or 55,1% of penal charges have been finalized with proposal for measures (diversity, disciplinary, additional monitoring, and institutional measures),

- 250 or 10,3 of penal charges have been finalized with proposal for penalization (work in general avail, imprisonment for juveniles, measure and imprisonment for juveniles),

- 181 or 7,5 % of penal charges are solved in other manners (cession, unification of procedures)

Decision related to presented proposals of prosecutors in diagram form are given below:

Related to proposals of the prosecutors in regard with penal charges of juveniles, the courts have decided for 628 persons as follows:- 15 or 2,4 % of proposals have been rejected,- 20 or 3,2 % of proposals are transferred in competence of another court,- 65 or 10,3% of proposals are solved with imposing the measure of diversity,- 197 or 31,4 % of proposals are solved with decision on termination of the

court procedure,- 318 or 50,6 % of proposals are finalised with decision on imposing the

educational measure, and - 13 or 2,1% of proposals are solved with penalization judgment against the

juveniles.From the structure of decisions (628) it is seen that the courts, for proposals of the prosecutor offices have made:- 212 or 33,8 % negative decisions (rejection and termination of procedure)- 396 or 63,1 % positive decisions (imposing the measure of diversity, educational measure and penalization judgment against the juveniles) and - 20 or 3,2 % transfer of cases to other court for processing)The structure of court decisions which are made for proposals of prosecutors is given below in a diagram:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

27.1% 55.1% 10.3% 7.5%

Proposition of measures

Proposal forpenalization Solving in

Another manner

Rejection andClosing thePenal charge

26

PENAL CHARGES FOR JUVENILE PERSONS ACCORDING TO PENAL ACTS

During 2007, Municipal and District Prosecutor Offices have received for processing 3205 penal charges.The structure of penal charges according to penal acts, for 3205 suspected persons for commitment of penal acts is as follows:- 639 or 19,9 % of penal charges belong to chapter XV – penal acts against

life and body.- 1819 or 56,8 % of penal charges belong to chapter XXIII – penal acts

against property,- 204 or 6,4 % of penal charges belong to chapter XXIV – penal acts against

the environment, animals, plants and cultural facilities,- 190 or 5,9 % of penal charges are related with chapter XXVIII – penal acts

against public order and legal activities, - 353 or 11,0 % of penal charges are related to other chapters of penal acts.The structure of penal acts according to chapters for juvenile perpetrators of penal acts in a diagram view look in the form below:

In 2007, 56,8 % of acts for which are reported juvenile perpetrators are related to chapter XXIII, penal charges against property (property violation).

1

2

3diversity,educational measureand judgment 63.1 %

decision( rejection and termination ) 33.8 %

cession3.2 %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

19.9% 56.8% 6.4% 5.9% 11.0%

P.A. againstLife and Body

P.A. againstProperty

P.A. againstEnvironment P.A. against

Public Order

P.A. fromOther chaptersOf PCP

27

- 805 or 44,3 % of penal charges are related to penal acts from section 252 –of PPCK, theft,

- 792 or 43,5 % of penal charges are related to penal act from section 253 – of PPCK, aggravated theft,

- 103 or 5,7% of penal charges are related with penal act from section 260 of PPCK, damage of movable property, etc.

The highest number of penal acts 470 or 73,6% from chapter XV, is related to penal act from section 153 of PPCK – light body injury, 96 or 15,0 % belong to section 154 of PPCK – heavy body injury etc.For penal charges from Chapter XXIV – Penal acts against environment, is interesting to mention that 202 or 99,0 % of reporting of juvenile perpetrators belong to section 285 of PPCK – like theft of woods-forest.The so-called offences of violence in total number of penal charges which are received for processing in the reporting year participate with 227 penal charges or with 7,9%, whereas trafficking with drug participates with 21 or with 0,7% of penal charges.

UNKNOWN PERPETRATORS OF PENAL ACTS

During 2007, Municipal and District Prosecutor Offices have received for processing 15403 penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts.From the number of received cases 14480 or 94,0% of penal charges belong to Municipal Prosecutor Offices, whereas 923 or 6,0% of penal charges belong to District Prosecutor Offices.For all cases where perpetrators of penal acts are unknown, the prosecutor offices in compliance with legal provisions, have requested from police to perform their investigation operations in order to discover the perpetrators and to proceed the cases to competent prosecutor offices, but the results have been only symbolic.During the reporting period, there are discovered 282 or 1,8 % of unknown perpetrators and 4740 or 30,8 % of penal charges are rejected by prosecutors as ungrounded.From the data we can find that the level of discovering by KPS is just symbolic, therefore the level of discovering of 1,8% is concerning.

STRUCTURE OF UNKNOWN PERPETRATORS ACCORDING TO PENAL ACTS

The structure of unknown perpetrators 15403 penal charges according to chapters of PPCK is as follows:- From chapter XV – PENAL ACTS AGAINST LIFE AND BODY are 295 or 1.9

% of penal charges,- From the chapter XVI – PENAL ACTS AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS AND

FREEDOM, are 250 or 1,6 % of penal charges,- From the chapter XXII – PENAL ACTS AGAINST ECONOMY, are 157 or 1,0

% of penal charges,- From the chapter XXIII-PENAL ACTS AGAINST PROPERTY, are 12928 or

83,9% of penal charges,

28

- From the chapter XXV – PENAL ACTS AGAINST GENERAL SAFETY OF PEOPLE AND PROPERTY, are 903 or 5,9 % of penal charges,

- From the chapter XXVIII – PENAL ACTS AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND –LEGAL ACTIVITIES, are 469 or 3,0% of penal charges, whereas other penal charges from other chapters which are not mentioned above participate with 401 or 2,6 % of penal charges.

The structure of penal charges according to chapters for unknown perpetrators of penal acts are given in a diagram below:

From the structure of penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal charges, it is seen that the highest number of unknown perpetrators of penal charges from the chapter XXIII – penal acts against property 12928 or 83,9 % of penal charges.When looking on the structure of penal acts against property, we find that 6069 or46,9 % of penal charges belong to penal act from section 253 aggravated theft, 5269 or 40,8 of penal charges belong to penal act from section 252 theft and 1071 or8,3% of penal charges belong to penal act from section 260 damage of immovable property, 248 or 1,9% of penal charges belong to penal acts from section 255 plunder, etc.The high number of unknown perpetrators belongs to penal acts from chapter XXV –penal acts against general safety of people and property, with 903 or 5,9 % of penal charges.The highest number of penal charges from this chapter – 820 or 91.0%, is related with penal acts from section 291 causing general risk.From chapter XV – penal acts against life and body, penal charges in percentage 35,6% belong to penal act from section 153 – light body injury, 24.5% of penal charges belong to section 154 – heavy body injury, 22,7 % of penal charges belong to penal acts from section 146 – murders.As for penal acts from chapter XVI – penal acts against human rights and freedom, 167 or 66,8 % of penal charges belong to penal act from section 161 – threat, etc.

STATUS OF QUALIFICATION OF STAFF AT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICES OF KOSOVA

Tab. 4 Distribution of civil staff based on workload with penal charges

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1.9% 1.6% 1.0% 83.9% 5.9% 3.0% 2.6%

P.A. againstLife and Body

P.A. against Human rightsAnd freedom

P.A. against Economy

P.A. against Property

P.A. againstSafety

P.A. againstPublicOrder

P.A. from otherChapters of PPCK

29

1)

Name ofprosecutor office

Nu

mb

er

of

pen

al

cha

rge

s re

ceiv

ed

fo

r p

roce

ssin

g in

20

07

Str

uct

ure

of

rece

ive

d

case

s fo

r p

roce

ssin

g

Dis

trib

utio

n

of

pro

secu

tors

in

M

PP

O-s

and

DP

PO

-s

ba

sed

on

the

str

uctu

re o

f ca

ses

rece

ived

fo

r p

roce

ssin

g in

20

07

Dis

trib

utio

n

of

pro

secu

tors

in

M

PP

O-s

and

DP

PO

-s

in

the

end

of 2

007

Dis

trib

utio

n o

f 12

2 a

llow

ed p

rose

cuto

rs in

20

08

ba

sed

on

pen

al c

harg

es

Ad

diti

on

al p

rose

cuto

rs in

MP

PO

-s a

nd

DP

PO

-s in

20

08

Dis

trib

utio

n o

f act

ua

l civ

il st

aff

l in

200

7 .

Dis

trib

utio

n o

f civ

il s

taff

acc

ord

ing

to

stru

ctu

re o

f re

ceiv

ed

pe

na

l cha

rges

fo

r p

roce

ssin

g d

urin

g 2

00

7

1

2 3 4 5 6

MPPO -Gjilan 3036 13,6 7 6 9 +3 19 21MPPO -Prizren 3932 17,7 8 6 13 +7 22 27MPPO -Peja 2718 12,2 6 5 9 +4 15 19MPPO -Gjakova 1036 4,7 2 3 3 0 9 7MPPO -Prishtina 6773 30,4 15 13 21 +8 9 47MPPO -Ferizaj 2384 10,7 5 6 8 +2 15 16MPPO -Mitrovica 2393 10,7 5 4 8 +4 14 17-Total – MPPO-s 22272 100,0 48 43 71 28 132 154DPPO -Gjilan 352 10,7 3 4 4 0 11 8DPPO -Prizren 407 12,3 4 7 6 -1 23 9DPPO -Peja 602 18,3 5 7 8 +1 23 13DPPO -Prishtina 1427 43,3 12 10 19 +9 21 32 DPPO -Mitrovica 512 15,5 5 6 7 +1 19 11Total – DPPO-s 3297 3) 100,0 29 34 44 10 97 73PP Office of Kosova 6 6 7 1 7 9Total prosecutors 83 83 128 39 236 236

3) DPPO-s in 2007 have received for processing 2539 penal charges of mature and juvenile perpetrators which in relation with penal charges of MPPO-s are estimated 1:5 i.e. 2539x5=12695 +759 other charges-cases is=13453, Prosecutors (77) are distributed in proportion 62% MPPO-s and 38% DPPO-s.

On 31/12/2007 in Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova there have been appointed 83 Public Prosecutors. From the appointed public prosecutors, 43 or 52,9 % belong to Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices, 34 or 41% of prosecutors belong to District Prosecutor Offices and 6 or 7% belong to Public Prosecutor Office of Republic of Kosova.Compared to previous year (2006), number of prosecutors has decreased for 3,5%, whereas the number of penal charges – cases at Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices is increased for 15,6%.For 2007, there have been allowed 92 positions for prosecutors what means that 9 vacant positions have not been filled.For year 2008 there are allowed 30 positions more for prosecutor and 9 positions which were not filled in 2007, it means that for year 2008 there must be appointed 39 prosecutors more.It must be mentioned that the present distribution of the number of prosecutors is not done in accordance with the structure of received cases in prosecutor offices,

1) Penal charges for unknown perpetrators of penal acts and different penal cases are estimated in relation with penal charges for mature perpetrators 1:8 (col. 1)

2) Penal cases of second instance in relation with penal cases of DPPO-s 1:3

30

therefore this defect must be improved during the process of distribution of 30 new allowed prosecutors for year 2008 and the 9 vacant positions from year 2007.A non-rational distribution has influenced increase of unsolved cases in the end of reporting period i.e. unsolved charges of mature perpetrators in the end of reporting period are increased for 2637 or 65,9% of persons, whereas in the case of juvenile perpetrators this increase has been even more drastic 99,0%.It is to be mentioned that based on the structure of penal charges – cases received for processing in 2007, MPPO in Prishtina must have had 15 prosecutors and not 13, MPPO in Prizren must have had 8 prosecutors and not 6, MPPO in Peja must have had 6 prosecutors and not 5, MPPO in Mitrovica must have had 5 prosecutors and not 4 (see col. 2 and 3 at tab. 4), at these MPPO-s is increased the number of unsolved penal cases particularly for this reason.It also must be mentioned that distribution of prosecutors in DPPO-s has not been in compliance with the number of penal charges – cases received for processing i.e. DPPO in Prizren based on the structure of penal charges must have had 4 prosecutors whereas it has had 7, DPPO in Peja must have had 5 prosecutors and not 7 as are now, the DPPO in Mitrovica has had 6 and must have had 5 (see col. 2 and 3 of tab. 4)Structure of penal charges received for processing and distribution of prosecutors in MPPO-s and DPPO-s in 2007 looks as in the diagram below:

Except this, another problem is also caused by promoting some prosecutors from MPPO-s to DPPO-s, like is the case of MPPO in Mitrovica, Gjilan and Prizren, and as a result there remained open vacancies of prosecutors at MPPO-s though we know that the MPPO-s are more loaded with cases than the DPPO-s.The factor which has influenced on increased of cases was transferring of some prosecutors of DPPO-s into the Special Prosecutor Office of Kosova for returning to their working place one year later (at District Prosecutor Offices), instead of systemizing them properly at DPPO of Prishtina, they were transferred to District Prosecutor Offices where they had worked earlier though there was no vacant place for them.For 2007 in the Republic of Kosovo for one hundred thousand inhabitants were appointed 4 prosecutors, in Bosnia and Herzegovina were appointed 11 prosecutors for one hundred thousand inhabitants whereas in Croatia were appointed 12 prosecutors for one hundred thousand inhabitants.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

41.1%52.0%59.0% 36.0% 5.0% 7.0%

Penal charges inM PPO

Prosecutors in MPPO-s

Penal chargesin DPPO-s

Number of prosecutorsin DPPO-s

Cases in KPPO

Number of prosecutors In KPPO

31

In case of appointing the 30 approved prosecutors in 2008 then the Republic of Kosovo will have 6 prosecutors for one hundred thousand inhabitants. According to the abovementioned records the prosecutors number it is not even approximate compared to others states in the region.On 31/12/2007, at civil staff of Prosecutor Offices of Kosova there have worked 236 persons, from them 140 or 59,3 % were of female gender, from this number 16 or6,8 % of employees were from minorities.

The structure of employees according to prosecutor offices is given below:Municipal Public Prosecutor Offices 132 or 55,9% of employees,District Public Prosecutor Offices 97 or 41,1 % of employees and Public Prosecutor Office of Kosova 7 or 3,0% of employees.

From the structure of distribution of 236 employees, it is evident that distribution of employees has not been done based on the criteria of workload with penal charges. To MPPO-s there belong 83,0% of charges – penal cases, to DPPO-s there belong 13,0% of penal charges-cases and Public Prosecutor Office of Kosova has had 4,0 % of penal charges-cases.When observing the above mentioned structures it is seen that distribution of employees (civil staff) is totally not in compliance with the structure of workload with penal charges-cases in MPPO-s and DPPO-s. It is illogical the fact that to DPPO-s there belong 13,0% of penal charges, whereas 41,1% of civil staff belongs to exactly DPPO-s.To better see the distribution of employees which is not done correctly, we will give below a diagram with the structure of penal case workload and the structure of employees.

This non-rational distribution exists also within the District Prosecutor Offices i.e. to DPPO of Prishtina there belong 43,3 % of penal charges from the total number of penal charges that belong to DPPO-s in Kosova, whereas to DPPO in Peja there belong 18,3 % of penal charges-cases, DPPO in Prishtina has 21 employees, whereas the DPPO in Peja has 23 employees, and based on the structure of penal charges – cases the DPPO of Prishtina must have had 32 employees, whereas DPPO in Peja must have had 13 employees.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3

Penal casesin MPPO-s

Number ofCivil staffIn MPPO-s

Number ofPenal casesIn DPPO-s

Number of Civil staff In DPPO-s

Number of Cases inKPPO

Number of CivilStaff in KPPO

32

CONCLUSION

As a conclusion there are summarized the difficulties – recommendations of some Municipal and District Prosecutor Offices which are mentioned for the annual report of 2007, otherwise some from the Prosecutor Offices have not delivered a written report at all.Some of the prosecutor offices have serious remarks related to the policy ofpenalization of the courts of first instance as the courts are implementing a very mitigated policy of penalization.Also the Courts of second instance when deciding related to complaints, usually there are approved the complaints of the accused – mitigate the punishment whereas the complaints from prosecutors for aggravation of penalty are rejected.Complaint related to the small number of prosecutors and support staff are made by all prosecutor offices, though some of prosecutor offices are not right at this point.Serious remarks are made related to application of the system of case management which has obstructions on implementing it and as a result the administration of prosecutor offices face difficulties on performing their job.Serious obstructions at work of prosecutor offices, especially District Public Prosecutor Offices is caused also by delays of the reports of autopsy from the Forensic Institute, and especially for penal charges of urgent nature – with detention for what it is impossible to finish cases at the required time.Obstacle for finalizing the cases is being caused by the fact that a high number of reported persons are fugitive and cannot be reached by the bodies of prosecutor offices. Especially there is problem with the reported persons of Serb nationality and a high number of such cases are not yet solved.Working space is also an important factor which influences on efficiency of performance of Public Prosecutor Offices of Kosova.In many prosecutor offices, two prosecutors share for work one office – when interrogating suspected persons, it is impossible for the other prosecutor to continue work inside the office until the interrogation has been finished, also administration of prosecutor offices does not have normal conditions for carrying the administrative work, even in the Municipal Public Prosecutor Office of Prizren a part of administration is located in basement of a building and even the minimal conditions for performing the job do not exist.When talking about the working space, the MPPO in Ferizaj, Peja, Gjilan do not have the minimal conditions for carrying their work, whereas the MPPO of Prishtinais located in a private house in vicinity of gymnasium where is not appropriate location for carrying the activities of the prosecutor office.Also another problem is the distance in between prosecutor offices and courts, knowing that the MPPO-s are not supplied with adequate vehicles for transportation (they are supplied with old Niva cars), and as a result of this it happens thatprosecutors remain in the middle of the road and cannot arrive at court sessions on time.The low number of prosecutors is a significant problem i.e. MPPO of Mitrovica is competent for representation in municipal 5 courts and this MPPO has only 4 prosecutors, what means that if all prosecutors go for representation at courts

33

outside the office of prosecutor, the MPPO of Mitrovica remains without any prosecutor inside.Equipping all residents with identification document, and when possible writing as clear as possible the exact address and city, as it is a significant factor for discovering unknown perpetrators of penal acts.Further it is worth to mention the low motivation of prosecutors and civil staff because of low salaries, and the biggest anomaly is that the courts take additionally 50€ for every month in the name of daily portions whereas this is not applied for prosecutor offices.