Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his rights under Article 23 of the Constitution were infringed by judgments of the Supreme Court, which increased the sentence imposed by the Prishtina District Court on an aggravated murder of a police officer conviction, and the Prishtina District Court, which convicted him of aggravated attempted murder of a second police officer, because he was innocent of the offenses. The Applicant also complained that he was physically abused by police officers during the search of his apartment, He contended that he did not appeal the District Court aggravated attempted murder conviction because he feared that the Supreme Court might increase his sentence again, The Court presumed that the Applicant intended to complain about the lack of a fair and impartial trial under Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It held that the Referral was inadmissible because the Referral was not submitted within the 4-month deadline mandated by Article 49 of the Law on the Constitution, The Court also held that the Referral was inadmissible pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution and Article 47.2 of the Law on the Constitutional Court because the Applicant failed to exhaust all of his legal remedies, as reflected by the absence of an appeal of the District Court aggravated murder conviction, The Court noted that the Applicant’s prediction about the outcome of the appeal did not release him from the exhaustion rule, citing Whiteside v. the United Kingdom. It also emphasized the rationale of the rule, which is based on an assumption that the Kosovo legal system will provide an effective remedy for constitutional violations, citing Selmouni v. France, Azinas v. Cyprus, AAB-RIINVEST University L.L.C. v. Government of Kosovo, and Mimoza Kusari Lila vs. The Central Election Commission