Constitutional Court

The Applicants filed their Referrals separately, based on Article 113,7 of the Constitution of Kosovo, alleging that the Judgment of the Supreme Court, Pkl, No, 45/12 violated their rights guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to a Fair and Impartial Trial], Article 32 [Right to Legal Remedies], Article 53 [Interpretation of Human Rights Provisions], Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution, because, according to the Applicants, the appeal courts of the case, according to the principle beneficium cohaesions (benefit of cohesion), should have treated the appeals of Mr, Burim Miftari and Mr, Adriatik Gashi as timely, because they were sentenced by the same judgment and as the co-perpetrators of the criminal offences with the convict Mr, H,G,, whose defense, ex-officio, filed an appeal within the legal time limit and that it was reviewed according to merits, The Applicants also requested that the Constitutional Court imposes interim measure, ordering the release of the Applicant from further serving of sentence, because by this, according to him, the irreparable damage would be avoided,
The Court reiterated that it is not the fact-finding court, and on this occasion it emphasized that the correct and complete determination of factual situation is a full jurisdiction of the regular courts, as it is in this particular case of the Supreme Court, by rejecting the request for protection of legality of the convicts Mr, Adriatik Gashi and Mr, Burim Miftari, and that its role (the role of the Constitutional Court) is to ensure compliance with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and other legal instruments and, therefore, it cannot act as a “fourth instance court”, In addition, the Court found that the Applicants, apart from stating that by interim measure the irreparable damage for the Applicants would be avoided; they did not substantiate this referral by any facts to justify the necessity of the imposition of this measure, They did not explain why the damage would be irreparable and why by non-application of the interim measure public interest would be violated, Therefore, the Court decided that the Applicant did not sufficiently substantiate his allegation and it cannot be concluded that the referral was grounded, and thus found the same inadmissible in entirety