Constitutional Court

The Applicant, a prison inmate serving a 30-year sentence following convictions for aggravated murder and weapons offenses, filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that unspecified Constitutional rights were infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming his convictions in the Prishtina District Court, The Applicant argued that the court decisions were based upon erroneous factual determinations, including a failure to perform a scene reconstruction, and that the sentence imposed was too harsh, The Court held that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible pursuant to Articles 102 and 113.1 of the Constitution, and Articles 47 and 48 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, because the Applicant failed to establish a prima facie showing that the proceedings in his case were unfair or not impartial. The Court noted its limited discretion to resolve constitutional disputes, and inability to revisit judicial determinations of fact and applications of substantive law, provided that the process was fair and impartial, citing Akdivar v. Turkey. The Court emphasized that the Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of his case was an insufficient basis for a Constitutional challenge, citing Mezotur-Tiszacugi Tarsulat v. Hungary